<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:460617334;
mso-list-template-ids:-1425480866;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:758210583;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-2002192004 67698705 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>> For example, if a CP/CPS said "The Subscriber may request, in writing or via programmatic means, for the CA to revoke the certificate. In such cases, the revocationReason SHALL be cessationOfOperation, unless the Subscriber provides a more specific revocation reason.", that would meet the above, right?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Actually, I’d think that such an attempt by a CA to comply with the requirement by default specifying “cessationOfOperation” unless informed otherwise by the Subscriber would be several steps back in terms of the stated goals:<o:p></o:p></p><ol style='margin-top:0in' start=1 type=1><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3'>cessationOfOperation would become the new “unspecified”, except that cessationOfOperation is actively misleading as it excludes the possibility that revocation was due to keyCompromise. I’d think that having a default of “no reason”/unspecified is less misleading/confusing, as it does not exclude the possibility that the reason for revocation was keyCompromise.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3'>The reasonCode of “cessationOfOperation” will be encoded in CRL/OCSP responses by default, thus no reduction of the number of bytes on the wire will be realized in the common case.<o:p></o:p></li></ol><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Can you point to the existing Root Program Requirement for this tightening of the end-entity revocation information profile in the BRs? I’m hoping that by reviewing this requirement it will be easier to suggest clarifications in the proposed language of the ballot.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Corey<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> <br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 25, 2020 5:40 PM<br><b>To:</b> Corey Bonnell <CBonnell@securetrust.com><br><b>Cc:</b> CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <servercert-wg@cabforum.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Servercert-wg] Ballot SC31 Browser Alignment - CRL and OCSP profiles<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 4:11 PM Corey Bonnell <<a href="mailto:CBonnell@securetrust.com">CBonnell@securetrust.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I don’t think we can get away from trusting what the Subscriber says though. <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><snip><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>> If a `reasonCode` CRL entry extension is present, the `CRLReason` MUST indicate the most appropriate reason for revocation of the certificate, as defined by the CA within its CP/CPS.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Having CAs define the semantics of the reasonCodes in their CPS sounds reasonable. However, absent stated expectations on the amount of investigative work that CAs must do to ascertain the correct reasonCode for end-entity certificates (whose meanings are generally not well defined in the first place), the safest bet to avoid non-compliance for CAs is to never supply any revocation information for end-entity certificates. But I agree with you that is a step back. <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>As an intermediate step, for the end-entity certificate reasonCode case, could we walk back the “MUST” to a “SHOULD” for specifying the most appropriate reason until the requirements for end-entity reasonCodes are better fleshed out? This would still give CAs an incentive to populate the reasonCode, but not necessarily create a non-compliance event by failing to meet unstated expectations.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I was actually trying to address both points you raised, although perhaps there's still opportunity for improvement.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>For example, if a CP/CPS said "The Subscriber may request, in writing or via programmatic means, for the CA to revoke the certificate. In such cases, the revocationReason SHALL be cessationOfOperation, unless the Subscriber provides a more specific revocation reason.", that would meet the above, right?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Am I overlooking something?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>