<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:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@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;
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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1089273881;
mso-list-template-ids:-364739132;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
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 style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><br>Line 1301: “i. once every 367 days; and”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I think that provision needs an “at least” as well. I don’t think we expect CAs to issue CRLs once every 367 days.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-Tim<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> Wayne Thayer <wthayer@gmail.com> <br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, October 18, 2021 8:29 PM<br><b>To:</b> Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com><br><b>Cc:</b> Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <dzacharo@harica.gr>; CABforum3 <validation@cabforum.org>; Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabf_validation] CRL Validity Interval Ballot<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thank you Ryan! I merged in your changes: <a href="https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/main...wthayer:ballot-SC52">https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/main...wthayer:ballot-SC52</a> <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 2:12 PM Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com">sleevi@google.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><p class=MsoNormal>Suggested edits in <a href="https://github.com/wthayer/servercert/pull/12/files" target="_blank">https://github.com/wthayer/servercert/pull/12/files</a> as PR to your branch<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 4:59 PM Wayne Thayer <<a href="mailto:wthayer@gmail.com" target="_blank">wthayer@gmail.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><p class=MsoNormal>How does this look?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/main...wthayer:ballot-SC52" target="_blank">https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/main...wthayer:ballot-SC52</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Wayne<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:50 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <<a href="mailto:dzacharo@harica.gr" target="_blank">dzacharo@harica.gr</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><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>That's my understanding too. If we are to create the "validity interval" definition, we must be clear that it is only applicable to CRLs and OCSP responses and that might be a bit challenging. Also change the term in 4.9.10 "validity interval" instead of "validity period".<br><br>Dimitris.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 14/10/2021 7:34 μ.μ., Wayne Thayer wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>My conclusion from this discussion is that the ballot should be updated to specify the validity interval of root CRLs and OCSP responses in days instead of months, with 397 days a SHOULD and 398 days a MUST. Ryan and Dimitris, is that correct?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Shall I also create a definition for 'validity interval' and make it applicable to CRLs and OCSP responses?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Wayne<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 8:08 AM Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" target="_blank">sleevi@google.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><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 10:57 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <<a href="mailto:dzacharo@harica.gr" target="_blank">dzacharo@harica.gr</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><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 13/10/2021 5:17 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><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 Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 10:05 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <<a href="mailto:dzacharo@harica.gr" target="_blank">dzacharo@harica.gr</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><p class=MsoNormal>4.9.7 and 4.9.10 have a nextUpdate requirement for Root CRLs and OCSP responses, and this is set for 12 months. Do we want the same level of "accuracy" as the CRL/OCSP responses of Subordinate CAs? If we do not, then we can focus on language about just the CRLs/OCSP responses issued by "online" CAs, as Wayne has already done at the proposed ballot and there is no need to make further changes to the BRs. <br><br>If I understand your position, you believe we should be specific (to the second) only for specific requirements, such as those linked to RFC 5280 (validity of a certificate, validity period of a CRL/OCSP response) and not the other cases (related to request tokens, audit reports, etc). Is that accurate?<o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Got it. Definite misunderstanding :)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>To try to rephrase:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><ul type=disc><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>Defining a day to be 86,400 seconds (with caveats) is appropriate for Section 1.6.4 if the desire is to make this ballot a broader "date interval" cleanup rather than just the CRL cleanup<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>This convention cannot address the "inclusive" aspect; that will need to remain appropriate for ASN.1 types (certificates, CRLs, OCSP)<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>The term "validity period" refers to certificates, and comes from X.509/RFC 5280. The term "validity interval" is a term we introduced for OCSP, because CRLs and OCSP responses don't necessarily have 'validity periods' (intervals, freshness, etc are all concepts used to refer to them) <o:p></o:p></li></ul><ul type=disc><ul type=circle><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1'>Taken together with the previous bullet: This means there still needs to be definitions specific to those, and within the specific sections (long-term, this would be the relevant profiles for certificates, CRLs, and OCSP, rather than the current distributed locations)<o:p></o:p></li></ul></ul><ul type=disc><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>Procedural controls - request tokens, audit reports, etc - still make sense to define in days<o:p></o:p></li></ul><ul type=disc><ul type=circle><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1'>However, the choice of period - 90 days vs 93 days, 397 days vs 398 days, 31 days vs 32 days - were intentionally selected to <i>allow</i> CAs to have a fixed calendrical schedule, without risk of violation.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1'>For example, if you have a 30 day period, then over a year, you will have shifted 5 to 6 days. You won't be able to, for example, "do something on the first of every month"<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1'>The "extra day" is to make sure that if you do it at 9am on the 1st of the month prior, you (hopefully unambiguously) have until midnight of the 1st of the current month, without running afoul<o:p></o:p></li></ul></ul><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br>Got it. Do you have any guidance or preference for the offline CA CRLs/OCSP responses? Should that continue to be described in months or move into something more specific?<o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Days was/is the suggestion. Months being 30 days or 31 days has the calendrical drift issue. So 367 days = 1 year/12 months. <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></div></body></html>