<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:"Yu Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Segoe Script";
panose-1:3 11 5 4 2 0 0 0 0 3;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@Yu Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
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;}
--></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 style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Wendy,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Do you know if the automatic issuance of such certificates can be disabled, and a private PKI be used for infrastructure purposes instead? Based on the discussions during the development of the profiles ballot, it was clear that private PKI should be used for CA infrastructure. However, prohibiting such use on a short timeframe would likely cause migration issues, so such issuance may need to continue to be permitted for at least some time.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I’m wondering whether it’s feasible to create a “infrastructure certificate" profile in the BRs that can allow for the continued issuance of these types of certificates while also establishing some guard rails. Do you happen to know whether these certificates share a profile that is roughly like one another? I personally haven’t used CA software that exhibits this “automatic issuance” behavior, so I’ll lean on others who do have experience.<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><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Wendy Brown - QT3LB-C <wendy.brown@gsa.gov> <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 21, 2023 8:24 AM<br><b>To:</b> Corey Bonnell <Corey.Bonnell@digicert.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] Draft ballot SC-XX: Profiles cleanup ballot<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Corey - <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>not according to some CA products - these additional certificates are created automatically at the time a new CA is established - so if they are not excluded those products are no longer eligible for use as Root CAs. It was my understanding that the original language that you are proposing to eliminate was put there so these products could continue to be used.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Segoe Script"'>Wendy</span><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'>Wendy Brown<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Supporting GSA<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>FPKIMA Technical Liaison<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Protiviti Government Services<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>703-965-2990 (cell)<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 8:19 AM Corey Bonnell <<a href="mailto:Corey.Bonnell@digicert.com">Corey.Bonnell@digicert.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-right:0in'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Hi Wendy,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>The intent behind the certificate profiles ballot was that the profile of all allowed certificate types issued from a BR-compliant CA were completely specified within the BRs. Adding a carve-out to allow the issuance of certificates whose profile is not specified and not intended for use outside the CA’s infrastructure would seem to go against that goal.<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'>Is the use of a private PKI not feasible for these internal infrastructure certificates?<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'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Corey<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>From:</b> Wendy Brown - QT3LB-C <<a href="mailto:wendy.brown@gsa.gov" target="_blank">wendy.brown@gsa.gov</a>> <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 19, 2023 3:54 PM<br><b>To:</b> Corey Bonnell <<a href="mailto:Corey.Bonnell@digicert.com" target="_blank">Corey.Bonnell@digicert.com</a>>; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:servercert-wg@cabforum.org" target="_blank">servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Servercert-wg] Draft ballot SC-XX: Profiles cleanup ballot<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I would not like to see #3 exclusion for Root CAs removed<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Some CA products when a new CA is established, automatically create some internal certificates that are necessary for the operation of the CA including possibly a key pair used to sign audit logs with a certificate signed by the Root CA that can be used to verify the integrity of the logs by verifying the signature. In addition to enabling cert-based authentication for trusted roles needing to access the CA, including for actions like manually instigating the issuance of a subordinate CA certificate or manually issuing a new CRL when there has not been a revocation.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>This change would make it so those products could not be compliant with the BRs, even though such certificates would never be seen outside the supporting infrastructure.<o:p></o:p></p></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'>If the rationale is there are no profiles for internal certificates, then I suggest a better fix would be to add the word public in the conflicting language in 7.1.2, as the internal certificates that have no BR profile should never be seen outside the CA's infrastructure. But removing the allowance would potentially trigger a non-compliance during an audit.:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;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 the CA asserts compliance with these Baseline Requirements, all <b><i><span style='color:black;background:yellow'>public </span></i></b>certificates that it issues MUST comply with one of the following certificate profiles, which incorporate, and are derived from RFC<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>5280.”<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><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'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Segoe Script"'>Wendy</span><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'>Wendy Brown<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Supporting GSA<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>FPKIMA Technical Liaison<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Protiviti Government Services<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>703-965-2990 (cell)<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 10:16 AM Corey Bonnell via Servercert-wg <<a href="mailto:servercert-wg@cabforum.org" target="_blank">servercert-wg@cabforum.org</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><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Hello,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>While adding support for SC-62 linting for TLS certificates in pkilint, a few issues were identified with the current language in section 6 and 7 of the BRs. To address these issues, I created a draft ballot on Github. The draft ballot text can be viewed here: <a href="https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/SC63..CBonnell:servercert:sc62-cleanup" target="_blank">https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/SC63..CBonnell:servercert:sc62-cleanup</a>.<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'>Chris Clements of the Chrome team reviewed and offered to endorse, so we’re looking for one more endorser to push this ballot forward.<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'>Please let me know if you have any feedback on the proposed language or if you’d be willing to endorse.<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'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Corey<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>_______________________________________________<br>Servercert-wg mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Servercert-wg@cabforum.org" target="_blank">Servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg" target="_blank">https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></body></html>