<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/1/2022 5:43 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvZgQtjUts_mch_fcxKseYVdQ2Wk9OdhQLgWF2BS2m-EEg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 4:53
AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <<a
href="mailto:dzacharo@harica.gr" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">dzacharo@harica.gr</a>>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<ul>
<li>For Random Values no more than 30 days from its
creation</li>
<li>For the CAA Records (they MUST do so within the TTL
of the CAA record, or 8 hours, whichever is greater)</li>
<li>4.2.1 about reusing information no more than 398
days</li>
<li>...<br>
</li>
</ul>
I don't assume every CA has implemented these checks to
the accuracy of seconds. If days are introduced at the
accuracy of 1'', all CA systems must be reviewed and
possibly updated to ensure their controls are measured at
this precision level or ensure this is done sooner than
the maximum, for safety.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think this has been expected some time for CAs. That's
perhaps why I'm surprised to hear the suggestion that this
may not be well-understood, and trying to understand how
that is.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> I'm merely proposing to add a recommendation for CAs
to adopt safer margins than the max limits in the BRs to
signal this expectation in a clearer way.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm not sure I follow. Your proposal was to significantly
change the margins (by adding 10% slack). </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That was a suggestion, and to avoid being misunderstood on my
follow-up email I asked for better and more reasonable numbers from
members. It's not even necessary to select 10% and instead follow
the browser practices (for example measure 3 months as 92 days, 1
year as 367 days, etc).<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvZgQtjUts_mch_fcxKseYVdQ2Wk9OdhQLgWF2BS2m-EEg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>I'm not sure specific language for durations would be
appropriate. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Not even to introduce a certain "slack" to resolve any ambiguity? I
thought you would be ok to update the documents for time interval
cases like for example "at least every 3 months" and specify them as
"at least every 92 days".<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvZgQtjUts_mch_fcxKseYVdQ2Wk9OdhQLgWF2BS2m-EEg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Perhaps, as a separate ballot and unrelated to this
discussion, it sounds like you'd be amenable to a change
that makes it clear that the Baseline Requirements are the
minimum expectations, and that CAs that perform only the
minimum are likely to encounter difficulties, and thus
should meet or exceed? I highlight it, because that
statement applies to <i>all</i> of the BRs, and its
requirements, while a statement specific to durations may
incorrectly lead folks to conclude, as we've seen in the
past, that it <i>only</i> applies to durations, rather than
being simply an emphasis of subtlety. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, agreed.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvZgQtjUts_mch_fcxKseYVdQ2Wk9OdhQLgWF2BS2m-EEg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<ul>
<li>1l: within six (6) months. This would possibly be
affected.</li>
<li>2j: at least every three (3) months. This would
possibly be affected.</li>
<li>3e: at least once every 31 days. That was supposed
to be once a month. Looks ok.</li>
<li>4c (1): one (1) week of receiving a request from the
CA/B Forum. That doesn't seem likely to happen but it
would possibly be affected :)</li>
<li>4c (3): at least every three (3) months. This would
possibly be affected.<br>
</li>
<li>4d: at least an annual basis. This would possibly be
affected.</li>
<li>4f: ninety-six (96) hours. That was supposed to be 4
days max. Looks ok.</li>
</ul>
<p>I believe that's all but I'd appreciate someone double
checking.<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>My understanding of your proposal is that the above
values be changed to 7 months, 3.3 months, 34 days, 8 days,
3.3 months, 13 months, and 105 hours. Have I misunderstood,
and you're no longer advocating that?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The 10% was just a suggestion. Later down the thread, I asked for
members to provide more reasonable slack. Judging from the earlier
discussions, it would make sense to update 3 months to 92 days, 6
months to... (2x92)=184 days??? and so on. However, if the intent
of the ballot proposers is only to touch upon "hours" and "days",
then we can clarify and move on leaving the week, month, year for
another ballot.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvZgQtjUts_mch_fcxKseYVdQ2Wk9OdhQLgWF2BS2m-EEg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>We have both been involved in the Forum and its
activities for some time and we know that the
expectation/good practice is to implement controls below
the upper bounds for safety. Someone who reads the BRs for
the first time will probably not immediately get that, not
with the current language anyway, and will likely
implement some/all (?) systems/controls using the upper
bounds. I believe we can make this expectation a bit
clearer to assist current and future implementations of
the BRs. I hope this makes my intention a bit clearer.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm not sure I understand the practical problem here?
Personally, I would think any CA that looks at something
like the BRs, and sees it as a recipe to become a trusted
CA, is fundamentally flawed and perhaps not worth
consideration. These represent minimum expectations, but
just like in life, doing the absolute minimum possible does
not engender a lot of trust, nor does it necessarily
encourage others to enter into business relationships with
you. It sounds like a blanket reminder of that fact, as it
applies holistically to these requirements, and within the
scope, may address that concern more fully though?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I believe it will help, because we continue to see CAs choosing to
implement the absolute minimum despite having discussed the risks in
mailing threads, teleconferences and F2F meetings. They usually
learn it the hard way through security incidents and feel
"surprised" that missing 1 second can be taken so seriously. Had
they known how serious this is from the very beginning of reading
these standards, some things would probably be designed differently.
This also applies to software engineers that implement CA software.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>