[cabfcert_policy] CA vs. CA draft proposal

Thu May 5 07:14:27 MST 2016

Should we take a straw poll on the public list as to which term we use?  

a.       Trust Service Provider (TSP)

b.       Certificate Service Provider (CSP)

c.       PKI Service Provider (SP)

d.       Certificate Issuer (CI)

e.       Service Provider (SP)

From: policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Dimitris Zacharopoulos
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 12:58 AM
To: policyreview at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfcert_policy] CA vs. CA draft proposal

On 29/3/2016 7:09 μμ, "Barreira Iglesias, Iñigo" wrote:

What about TSP and then merge with the EU approach? 

Coming back to this topic, I would also agree to changing the "CA" term with "TSP" which is more clearly referred to as an organization. This will also help to make a subordinate CA definition clearer because it is currently being used in the BRs as a non-affiliated organization AND as an Intermediate CA Certificate of the organization in control of the Root CA.

The following definitions would come from a "strict" interpretation of the terms "Certification Authority" and "Subordinate CA" of the current BRs.

Intermediate CA Certificate: A Certificate issued by a Root Certificate or another Intermediate CA Certificate which is deemed as capable of being used to issue new certificates and which contains an X.509v3 basicConstraints extension, with the cA boolean set to true. If an Intermediate CA Certificate is issued to a non-affiliated organization, then this Intermediate CA Certificate is also referred to as an Intermediate CA Certificate of a Subordinate CA.

Subordinate CA: A non-affiliated organization in direct or indirect control of an Intermediate CA Certificate capable of being used to issue new certificates for that organization.

Does this seem any clearer?

Dimitris.

Iñigo Barreira
Responsable del Área técnica
i-barreira at izenpe.eus <mailto:i-barreira at izenpe.eus>  
945067705

ERNE! Baliteke mezu honen zatiren bat edo mezu osoa legez babestuta egotea. Mezua badu bere hartzailea. Okerreko helbidera heldu bada (helbidea gaizki idatzi, transmisioak huts egin) eman abisu igorleari, korreo honi erantzuna. KONTUZ!
ATENCION! Este mensaje contiene informacion privilegiada o confidencial a la que solo tiene derecho a acceder el destinatario. Si usted lo recibe por error le agradeceriamos que no hiciera uso de la informacion y que se pusiese en contacto con el remitente.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org>  [mailto:policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org] En nombre de Ben Wilson
Enviado el: jueves, 24 de marzo de 2016 15:43
Para: Ben Wilson; Peter Bowen; policyreview at cabforum.org <mailto:policyreview at cabforum.org> 
Asunto: Re: [cabfcert_policy] CA vs. CA draft proposal

After discussing this a bit, I'd prefer sticking to "CA" when using it as an adjective.  Also, I still think it might be better to replace "CA," when talking about the entity, with either "CSP" or "CASP"--even if that  means making sweeping changes throughout the  guideline documents.

-----Original Message-----
From: policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org> 
[mailto:policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ben Wilson
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 7:58 AM
To: Peter Bowen  <mailto:pzb at amzn.com> <pzb at amzn.com>; policyreview at cabforum.org <mailto:policyreview at cabforum.org> 
Subject: Re: [cabfcert_policy] CA vs. CA draft proposal

Thanks!  Let's discuss today.

-----Original Message-----
From: policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org> 
[mailto:policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bowen
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 7:43 AM
To: policyreview at cabforum.org <mailto:policyreview at cabforum.org> 
Subject: [cabfcert_policy] CA vs. CA draft proposal

New Definitions:

Certificate Issuer (CI): An issuer of Certificates defined by a distinct Distinguished Name and Public Key

CI Certificate: A Certificate for which any of the following are true:
- A Basic Constraints extension is present and the cA component is set to TRUE
- A Key Usage extension is present and the keyCertSign bit is set

CI Key Pair: A Key Pair which has its Public Key included in a CI Certificate

Cross-Certificate: A CI certificate which is not a Self-Issued CI Certificate

End-entity Certificate: A Certificate which is not a CI Certificate

Root CI: A CI which is distributed by Application Software Suppliers as a trust anchor

Root CI Key Pair: A CI Key Pair which has its Public Key included in a Root Certificate

Root CI Certificate:  A CI Certificate which contains the Public Key from a Root CI Key Pair

Self-Issued CI Certificate: A CI Certificate where the subject and issuer Distinguished Names match

Technically Constrained CI Certificate: A CI certificate which uses a combination of Extended Key Usage settings and Name Constraint settings to limit the scope within which CI may issue Subscriber or additional CI Certificates.

Modifications:

In section 3.1.5, insert the following text:

Each CI Public Key MUST be associated with a single distinct Distinguished Name.  Each CI Distinguished Name MUST be associated with a single unique Public Key.

In section 4.3.1, append the following text:

A CA shall only issue a Self-Issued CI Certificate when the Private Key used by the CA to sign the Certificate corresponds to the Public Key that is certified within the Certificate.

<more to change CA to CI where appropriate> _______________________________________________
Policyreview mailing list
Policyreview at cabforum.org <mailto:Policyreview at cabforum.org> 
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/policyreview
_______________________________________________
Policyreview mailing list
Policyreview at cabforum.org <mailto:Policyreview at cabforum.org> 
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/policyreview

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/policyreview/attachments/20160505/735bde6e/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4954 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://cabforum.org/pipermail/policyreview/attachments/20160505/735bde6e/attachment-0001.bin 