[Cscwg-public] Updated CRL Revocation Date Clarification Pre-Ballot
Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)
dzacharo at harica.gr
Mon Oct 11 11:51:27 UTC 2021
I'm also happy to endorse this version of the ballot.
On 6/10/2021 5:53 μ.μ., Corey Bonnell via Cscwg-public wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
> Comments inline.
> > When should we use revocationDate and revocation date OR invalidity
> date and invalidtyDate? I think we should make the use consistent in
> this section.
> Thanks for pointing this out; I went back and added “field” to the
> locations where the text is referring to the CRL/OCSP fields and also
> ensured that the locations where the fields aren’t being referenced
> have a space between “revocation”/”invalidity” and “date”.
> > Do we want a footnote or a *Note* similar to what is done in the SSL
> It looks like the TLS BRs use both conventions; I’m partial to
> footnotes since footnotes don’t interrupt the “flow” of the document
> with explainer text, but happy to change it to a “Note” if we want to
> use that convention in the CSBRs.
> > It would be good to clarify if the effective date applies only to
> future revocations or all revocations. As such, could we state that
> “For Code Signing Certificates revoked on or after 2022-07-01, if the
> CA includes the Invalidity Date CRL entry extension …”
> I tweaked the wording for the new requirement to make it clear it’s
> applicable to CRLs published on or after 2022-07-01, so historical
> revocation entries may need to be modified if they don’t match the
> *From:* Bruce Morton <Bruce.Morton at entrust.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 6, 2021 9:57 AM
> *To:* Corey Bonnell <Corey.Bonnell at digicert.com>;
> cscwg-public at cabforum.org
> *Subject:* RE: Updated CRL Revocation Date Clarification Pre-Ballot
> Hi Corey,
> Rather than marking up the document, I have a few comments:
> 1. When should we use revocationDate and revocation date OR
> invalidity date and invalidtyDate? I think we should make the use
> consistent in this section.
> 2. Do we want a footnote or a *Note* similar to what is done in the
> SSL BRs?
> 3. It would be good to clarify if the effective date applies only to
> future revocations or all revocations. As such, could we state
> that “For Code Signing Certificates revoked on or after
> 2022-07-01, if the CA includes the Invalidity Date CRL entry
> extension …”
> Thanks, Bruce.
> *From:* Cscwg-public <cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org
> <mailto:cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org>> *On Behalf Of *Corey
> Bonnell via Cscwg-public
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 6, 2021 8:23 AM
> *To:* cscwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:cscwg-public at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Cscwg-public] Updated CRL Revocation Date
> Clarification Pre-Ballot
> WARNING: This email originated outside of Entrust.
> DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know
> the content is safe.
> Thank you to Rob, Bruce, and Dimitris for the valuable feedback on the
> original pre-ballot draft. I have incorporated the conclusions from
> our discussions on the list and the last call into the latest draft;
> please see the attached.
> There were two changes:
> * There is now a footnote that better explains the rationale for
> using the revocationDate field to convey the “invalidity date”
> * The effective date for the Invalidity Date extension value change
> has been pushed back to July 1^st , 2022.
> Let me know if there are any questions or comments. Barring any
> further substantial changes, I think we’re ready at this point to look
> for two endorsers to push the ballot forward.
> /Any email and files/attachments transmitted with it are confidential
> and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
> whom they are addressed. If this message has been sent to you in
> error, you must not copy, distribute or disclose of the information it
> contains. _Please notify Entrust immediately_ and delete the message
> from your system./
> Cscwg-public mailing list
> Cscwg-public at cabforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Cscwg-public