[Cscwg-public] Final Minutes of CSCWG September 9, 2021

Corey Bonnell Corey.Bonnell at digicert.com
Tue Sep 28 16:50:34 UTC 2021

Minutes have been posted to the website:


From: Cscwg-public <cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> On Behalf Of Dean
Coclin via Cscwg-public
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 6:33 PM
To: cscwg-public at cabforum.org
Subject: [Cscwg-public] Final Minutes of CSCWG September 9, 2021


Final Minutes:


CSCWG Thursday, September 9, 2021



Atsushi Inaba  

Ben Wilson

Bruce Morton   

Corey Bonnell  

Dean Coclin    

Dimitris Zacharopoulos

Iñigo Barreira

Janet Hines  

Joanna Fox   

Roberto Quiñones

Sebastian Schulz

Tim Hollebeek

Tomas Gustavsson


Dean read the anti-trust statement. 

Minute-taker: Joanna. Next minute taker: Corey

Prior meeting minutes of 26 August 2021 were approved.


*	WordPress steps to update the CSCBRs

*	Ben asked for a volunteer webmaster to do WP ballot page and be
appointed to do the updates and publication. Ben has written up steps for
Github; however, Dimitris mentioned we are not using Github (yet) in this
group. Ben said that we can customize the instructions to our process.
Officially there is a webmaster for this group, that’s Corey (and he
volunteered). Ben organized the ballots and posts. CSC 9 is in draft form
but not yet published.
*	Steps for the WP process: Ballot goes out gets voted on, IPR notice
goes out. Post in WP goes out with results of ballot and period for IPR
review. This marks the date of the effective date.  30 days later the ballot
comes out with the effective date, watermark removed, gets published to WP
post. Using categories and tags in the future.  
*	Dimitris - procedure wise, when we vote on a ballot, the voting
results, who is updating the website with the vote results before we start
the IPR review period? Dean said we hadn’t done that yet, all the voting
results are on the ballot tracker in email. Dimitris - It needs to link to
the ballots table on the website. Ben - there will be a training session for
how to do that for anyone who wants to attend, Dean agreed. Corey, Bruce,
Dimitris and Ben to attend.


*	Ballot Status:

*	CSC-6: Subscriber Private Keys (Ian) Discussion on what’s acceptable
for subscriber private key verification. Today it is, primarily for non EV
attached to the subscriber agreement and recommendations bout the CA. For
EV, Tim Crawford had called out that no one had ever done the suitable
audit. Ian was looking to add level of guidance for how to obtain
verification for key generation and storage with a cloud based key
protection and key generation solution. Ian was looking to add CA witnesses
to key creation live over Webex (or similar), Dimitris agreed. This is lower
assurance than the remote station. Ian would love it if remote key
attestation was viable, but it’s not right now due to those who run cloud
protection solutions. It is on their roadmap. Tim, Dimitris, Tomas and Ian
all see value in this. Ian is consistently following up. Roberto suggested
that maybe everyone interested should put a word in to get this done, Ian
can use the names listed for support. After CSC11 Ian wants to bring this
discussion for common ground on what’s acceptable.
*	CSC-9: Clean-up and Clarification ballot (Bruce) – in IPR till 8
September, no feedback on IPR. Effective date today.
*	CSC-10: CSBR 2.0 WebTrust Audit Criteria (Bruce) – in IPR till 12
September, assumed no feedback on IPR. Bruce wants to do one update for both
ballots.  Dimitris - bylaws say you need to publish within 3 days, so will
have to be separate. Bruce - it’s already written, push out 9 today and 10
Monday or Tuesday next week. Dimitris reminded effective date is date of
publishing. Ben - wants a bylaw update that clarifies effective date. To say
that the effective date is the 30 day, if there is no IPR objection, that
the effective date is the date standard as the end of the public review
period. This hasn’t been proposed yet. Tim would strongly support adding
some clarity to define effective date. Dimitris - we have identified the
problem, it’s in section 2 subsection 6, which says that the chair has 3
days to publish any possible exclusion notices. Tim - we could make it so
the effective date is the end of that 3 day period, Ben agreed. Bruce
brought up differences between requirement effective and effective date of
the document. Ben - there are two dates, we should lock it down so it is
known. Tim - has a blog post on his to do list asking if every BR change
should have an effective date. Discussed various options for handling
effective dates and combining with WebTrust, possibly roll up of changes on
a managed release cycle. Dimitris found a proposal from Rich Smith about
this issue and suggested we reintroduce the idea here. Bruce suggested doing
it at the forum level so it is across all ballots. Tim and Tomas agreed to
have a cadence. Tim - having a working group start it might be a good way to
get traction in the forum. Dean - what if the chair doesn’t post the IPR in
3 days, then the VC needs to do it within 5, that was incorrect there is no
*	CSC-11: Update to log retention requirements (Ian) Viewing changes.
Incorporated everyone’s feedback. Section 15 is different from BRs, very
specific. Removed signing service. Section 15.2 added timestamp authority
data records, make available to your auditor. Section 15.3, at least 2 years
for data retention. Some discussion around the risk evaluation in note in
this section. Ian removed entry from the revision table 2.6. 

*	Move CSCBRs to new format (Corey) Mapping document circulated on the
list, green copied as is, yellow wordsmithing, red removed. Dimitris
reviewed and changes made in the latest PR. Ian - Is it acceptable to
introduce normative or still maintain language or take a pragmatic approach
and just tighten up language? Dean point release, anything in those
categories we put them in a table so everything comes as is in a new
version. Bruce - we did a liberal merger, lots of time to review. Tim agreed
to same bar, take out controversial. Corey - 2 areas Dimitris raised,
Section 7 maintained allowance incorporated BR allowances. Dimitris -
extensive changes, not normative suggesting to migrate what we have and
follow up with a clean up ballot. Ben - big issue with blank or no
stipulation Tim - has strong feelings, very important to put no stipulation
in blank sections to make it clear, Dimitris agreed. Corey - we could make
it more explicit as to when to go to the BRs, asked for feedback. Tim stated
that banning RSA PSS is going too far. Corey will revert HEX encodings that
were brought over. Dimitris brought up no future effective date. Tim
suggested adding one to avoid problems from normative changes, has concerns
about errors or misunderstandings. Corey says we could just delay the ballot
for a few months. Bruce brought up that we could create a ballot later to
fix any issues. Tim withdrew complaint. Corey - action items 1 - removing
all the prescriptive encodings for the algorithms and reinsert the DSA
allowance. 2 - review, go through blank sections does the BRs make sense and
add no stipulation where applicable. Dimitris wants to hold off on new
ballots and Tim responded to talk about that next meeting. Corey said
mechanically its not that hard but understands his point.

*	Other business - Dimitris wanted to talk about the mailing list
revocation date discussion. Bruce doesn’t think it changes anything. Tim
says clarify it. Bruce - sounds like you can backdate the revocation date
(but you shouldn’t). Need to add the clarification of this to the parking
*	Next Meeting – September 23
*	Adjourn


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/cscwg-public/attachments/20210928/71c2b224/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4990 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/cscwg-public/attachments/20210928/71c2b224/attachment-0001.p7s>

More information about the Cscwg-public mailing list