<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>HARICA votes "yes" on ballot SC-076v2</p>
<p>Regards,<br>
Antonis</p>
<p></p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Στις 26/9/24 22:01, ο/η Aaron Gable via
Servercert-wg έγραψε:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:010001922fb571cf-c457e04c-a17d-452d-8944-7c0231121f35-000000@email.amazonses.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr"><b>Purpose of Ballot</b>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is v2 of this ballot; you can see the discussion
thread for v1 here: <a
href="https://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/2024-August/004798.html"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/2024-August/004798.html</a></div>
<div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div>This ballot attempts to address three concerns:<br>
- The confusion around "reserved" serials, which do not
actually exist because all Precertificate serials are
assumed to also exist in corresponding Certificates and are
therefore actually "assigned";<br>
- Confusion around whether, and how quickly, OCSP responders
must begin providing authoritative responses for
Certificates and Precertificates; and<br>
- Confusion around whether and how the OCSP requirements
apply to Certificates which do not contain an AIA OCSP URL,
but for which the CA's OCSP responder is still willing to
provide responses.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>These concerns have been previously discussed in <a
href="https://github.com/mozilla/pkipolicy/issues/280"
moz-do-not-send="true">this Mozilla policy bug</a>, <a
href="https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues/422"
moz-do-not-send="true">this ServerCert WG bug</a>, and <a
href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1905419"
moz-do-not-send="true">this Bugzilla incident</a>.<br>
<br>
It addresses these concerns by:<br>
- Stating that OCSP responses must be available within 15
minutes of signing a certificate containing an AIA OCSP URL;<br>
- Removing the concept of a "reserved" serial entirely;<br>
- Moving all OCSP requirements into Section 4.9.9, leaving
Section 4.9.10 (which RFC 3647 says is meant to place
requirements on relying parties, not on CAs) empty; and<br>
- Organizing the requirements in Section 4.9.9 into three
clusters:<br>
- Definitions of "validity interval", "assigned", and
"unassigned";<br>
- Requirements on OCSP Responders, which apply only to
responses from AIA OCSP URLs found in issued certs; and<br>
- Requirements on OCSP Responses, which apply to all
responses regardless of whether the certificate in question
has an AIA OCSP URL.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>GitHub PR representing this ballot: <a
href="https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/pull/535"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/pull/535</a></div>
<div>Rendered view of the resulting text: <a
href="https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/blob/a8a36690802250cdbe508a6c1f99f700a5357bd3/docs/BR.md#499-on-line-revocationstatus-checking-availability"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/blob/a8a36690802250cdbe508a6c1f99f700a5357bd3/docs/BR.md#499-on-line-revocationstatus-checking-availability</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Motion</b></div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div>The following motion has been proposed by Aaron Gable
(Let's Encrypt / ISRG), and is endorsed by Ben Wilson
(Mozilla) and Antonis Eleftheriadis (HARICA).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Motion Begins</b></div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div>Modify the "Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and
Management of Publicly-Trusted TLS Server Certificates",
based on Version 2.0.6, as specified in the following
redline:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a
href="https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/929d9b4a1ed1f13f92f6af672ad6f6a2153b8230...a8a36690802250cdbe508a6c1f99f700a5357bd3"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/929d9b4a1ed1f13f92f6af672ad6f6a2153b8230...a8a36690802250cdbe508a6c1f99f700a5357bd3</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Motion Ends</b></div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div>This ballot proposes a Final Maintenance Guideline. The
procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Discussion Period (at least 7 days)<br>
</b></div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div>Start: August 29, 2024 19:00 UTC</div>
<div>End: September 26, 2024 19:00 UTC</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Voting Period (7 days)</b></div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div>Start: September 26, 2024 19:00 UTC</div>
<div>End: October 3, 2024 19:00 UTC</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
Servercert-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Servercert-wg@cabforum.org">Servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg">https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>