<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Thanks Tim (and others that helped correct me here)! I think I also can/should update to basing it off of v1.8.1 of the BRs now as well?<br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Feb 11, 2022, at 10:13 AM, Tim Hollebeek <<a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com" class="">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta charset="UTF-8" class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">Did you make changes to the version posted when the discussion period started? If so, then we need to post a new version of the ballot and restart the discussion period.<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">-Tim<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div><div style="border-style: none none none solid; border-left-width: 1.5pt; border-left-color: blue; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;" class=""><div class=""><div style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-width: 1pt; border-top-color: rgb(225, 225, 225); padding: 3pt 0in 0in;" class=""><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><b class="">From:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Servercert-wg <<a href="mailto:servercert-wg-bounces@cabforum.org" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" class="">servercert-wg-bounces@cabforum.org</a>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">On Behalf Of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Clint Wilson via Servercert-wg<br class=""><b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Thursday, February 10, 2022 6:19 PM<br class=""><b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>ServerCert CA/BF <<a href="mailto:servercert-wg@cabforum.org" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" class="">servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a>><br class=""><b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [Servercert-wg] Discussion Period Begins on Ballot SC51: Reduce and Clarify Audit Log and Records Archival Retention Requirements<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div></div><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">I’ve incorporated the feedback received thus far into <a href="https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/cda0f92ee70121fd5d692685b97ebb6669c74fb7...8398fb32ab21829b55ab4ca4f0cf9060ec44741a" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" class="">https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/cda0f92ee70121fd5d692685b97ebb6669c74fb7...8398fb32ab21829b55ab4ca4f0cf9060ec44741a</a> and plan to start the voting period for this ballot tomorrow. Please let me know if there are issues with this, or if there’s a preference for restarting a discussion period instead, and thanks to all for the input so far!<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">Cheers,<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">-Clint<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><br class=""><br class=""><o:p class=""></o:p></div><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;" class=""><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">On Jan 24, 2022, at 2:40 AM, Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <<a href="mailto:dzacharo@harica.gr" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" class="">dzacharo@harica.gr</a>> wrote:<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p class=""> </o:p></p><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">On 21/1/2022 9:57 μ.μ., Clint Wilson wrote:<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;" class=""><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><br class=""><br class=""><o:p class=""></o:p></div><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;" class=""><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">On Jan 20, 2022, at 2:54 AM, Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Servercert-wg <<a href="mailto:servercert-wg@cabforum.org" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" class="">servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div><div class=""><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">Similarly with Aaron, I support the intent of this ballot but have similar concerns about the terms used in the ballot.<br class=""><br class="">Back in May 2021, I sent<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="https://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/netsec/2021-May/000449.html" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" class="">this message</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>to the NetSec Subcommittee referring to RFC 3647 for guidance on the use of the terms "audit log" and "records archival". In my understanding the authors of RFC 3647 were trying to capture two different sets of "evidence". Each set would need to define the "types of events recorded/types of records archived", the "retention period", the "protection" controls, and the "backup" controls.<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">I agree that the authors of RFC 3647 intended for more detail to be included in a CPS around each of these sections than is currently in the BRs or added via the proposed changes in this ballot, however I don’t believe that RFC 3647 intends for 5.4 and 5.5 to represent two entirely different sets of “evidence”. For example, in section 4.5.4 (“Audit Logging Procedures”) it indicates that coverage should include “Frequency with which audit logs are processed or archived”. Similarly, in 4.5.5 (“Records Archival”) the RFC indicates that coverage should include “Types of records that are archived, for example all audit data….”. These references to archive and audits lead me to the interpretation that the authors of RFC 3647 intended for the records archival process to be an overarching collection and retention of audit data (i.e. everything logged in section 5.4) along with other data which may not be processed by event logging or audit systems (such as documentation supporting certificate applications). That is, as a Venn diagram, this is one circle inside another. This ballot attempts to clearly outline the end result of this relationship by delineating (and repeating, where relevant) the categories of data accounted for in both sections 5.4 and 5.5. Given Aaron’s feedback, I definitely think there’s room for improving<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i class="">how</i> we outline that end result, however.<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">Of course, one could also imagine, in CA-specific scenarios and modernized validation/issuance processes, that all data processed by the CA goes through event logging systems, and therefore there would be no additional data beyond audit data present in the records archive. I don’t believe this ballot negatively impacts such a CA, but I would love to hear if there are perceived unintended implications from the proposed text which can be corrected.<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div></div><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><br class="">I understand that RFC3647 has a different meaning in the term "archival" (used in the phrase "records archival") compared to this ballot.<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div></div></blockquote><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">Are there differences that would be helpful to share here? FWIW, my understanding is that archival is, as noted in 4.5.5 of RFC 3647, “records retention” — that is, the continued possession and control of a collection of records, typically (but not necessarily) on a less frequently used storage medium. Perhaps this would be worth including as a newly defined term, if there’s general agreement that this represents what an archive is meant to be in the context of 5.5?<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div></blockquote><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><br class="">The notion of retention is also included in 4.5.4 in the phrase "Period for which audit logs are kept" but I see your point.<br class=""><br class="">I believe the interpretation that audit logs (described in section 5.4 of the BRs) are a subset of records archival (described in section 5.5) is fair and reasonable, and unless there are any objections, we should adopt it as such in the BRs by providing the necessary additional language. This will clarify the intent and expectations from CAs and auditors evaluating these requirements.<br class=""><br class="">Dimitris.</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>