[cabfpub] Notes of meeting CAB Forum 30 May 2013
ben at digicert.com
Thu Jun 27 19:29:00 UTC 2013
Here are the notes from the CA/Browser Forum Teleconference held 30 May 2013
Notes of meeting
30 May 2013
1. Present: Jeremy Rowley, Dean Coclin, Stephen Davidson, Ben Wilson, Kirk
Hall, Geoff Keating, Ryan Koski, Mert Ozarar, Tom Albertson, Joe Kaluzny,
Robin Alden, Ryan Sleevi, Connie Enke, Atsushi Inaba, Gerv Markham, Eddy
Nigg, Wayne Thayer, Brad Hill, Phill Hallam Baker
ICANN Presenters: Francisco Arias, Tomofumi Okubo, Jeff Moss, and Steve
2. Agenda review: Approved as published.
3. ICANN gTLD Discussion: Ben said that everyone should have received the
PDF version of the presentation and turned the time over to Francisco who
reviewed ICANN's request for information to the CAB Forum. Francisco said
that they would like to have their report completed by June 21.
There are two main questions that ICANN is trying to address concerning the
internal name issue:
(1) How widespread is the use of internal name certificates that either do
or could contain names that collide with new gTLD applications?
(2) What are the risks associated with delegating new gTLDs with names that
could appear in internal name certificates issued to someone not related to
the new gTLD?
ICANN would like assistance from members of the CA/Browser Forum in
gathering information that will help answer these questions. Concerning
the Request For Information (RFI), ICANN is willing to sign an NDA with each
CAB Forum member to share information with them. The questions presented by
the RFI are:
1. Are non-public domain names used in common names or
2. What types of certificates are allowed with non-public domain names?
(e.g., TLS/SSL, S/MIME, VPN, code signing, access control)
3. What anonymous statistical data can be provided to ascertain how many
certificates with nonpublic domain names have been issued and how many are
still valid in the following categories: i. certificate type ii. certificate
lifetimes iii. country-of-origin and iv. organization
4. Do you allow issuing CAs under your root CA?
5. Are issuing CAs allowed to issue certs with non-public domain names?
6. Are policies being revised to restrict issuing certs with non-public
7. What issues are of concern from a CA operator's perspective with regard
to introduction of new gTLDs at the root of the public DNS?
8. Who from your CA will communicate with ICANN in discussing these issues
from your perspective and that of your customers?
9. What recommendations can be offered for how to introduce new TLDs at the
public DNS root?
10. How can further coordination between ICANN and root CA operators occur?
Any questions can be directed to Francisco at Francisco.arias at icann.org.
Jeff Moss said that when ICANN makes decisions or takes action it needs to
be based on data. Dean asked whether ICANN had received a copy of
Symantec's presentation on internal server names because it had good
comments from enterprises and explained why internal names are being used.
Jeff said they had.
With regard to the first item, Ben said he did not think many internal names
were in common names, but Wayne disagreed, and Ryan Sleevi said that it is
perfectly acceptable for them to appear in either or both the SAN and common
name, and if these were certificates for internal devices, this would
commonly be the internal name, and there are technical reasons to place the
internal name in the common name field, especially for older devices, some
of which cannot process SANs.
Ben said that for the four or five categories of information that ICANN was
looking for, most could be aggregated by the CA before providing it to
ICANN. However, if that's done without some coordination on the data, it
might make it more difficult to create an aggregate analysis because each CA
would respond differently. He asked Francisco to clarify the kind of data
we are talking about here. Francisco said that the more information
received the better. He understands there are sensitivities, and if that is
the case, and the CA believes it cannot provide access to raw data, then
ICANN would understand, but they are hoping for access to raw data.
Ben said that unless the data is all coming in the same way, then it's less
scientific, i.e., would need to be pulled into the right data fields.
Francisco said that ICANN does not want to create a whole lot of work for
CAs--they just want the aggregate data. ICANN will provide a format of how
it would like to get the data. Generally, if you take a certificate and
parse it, you'll get issuance date, expiration date, common name, SANs, and
for most certificates you'll have a country code. It might be difficult for
some CAs to separate out certificates in the public name space vs.
certificates issued for non-public name space. Francisco said if CAs could
provide access to the internal names of certificates, that would contain
most of the information ICANN is looking for. For the data, ICANN is
looking for all non-public names not just the ones that have been issued
under applied-for gTLDs. They are looking for all because there will be
future rounds of gTLD delegations. Jeremy said he didn't think that ICANN
wanted to know which certificates contained .local or .example, because
those are reserved and ICANN shouldn't really need to know that information.
If the ICANN deadline is June 21, then working back that is three weeks
away. ICANN would like the data within the next week or two. Because the
CAB Forum in-person meeting is coming up, CAs will need at least until the
21st of June. Wayne said that GoDaddy had already pulled most of the data
needed. Robin said Comodo should be able to provide a response in about 2
weeks. Kirk said that TrendMicro had never issued any of the certificates,
so they don't have an issue with this. Stephen Davidson said that they
would have to look at their information and get back. Eddy said that
StartCom has never issued these kinds of certificates, so they are not
affected. Ben said that everyone should set a goal of getting it taken
care of or arranged so they know what they're doing before they leave for
the face-to-face meeting. He suggested that all members review the request
and get back to ICANN with a response. He then mentioned that ICANN has
requested observer / interested party status.
Francisco asked that all CAs contact him and email him with any questions.
4. Approve Minutes of 16 May 2013: Approved without objection.
5. Ballots: We have received comments about withdrawing Ballot 100 for
further editing. Mozilla had commented. Gerv said that pulling the ballot
had support from Mozilla, Google and Opera. Brian Smith had set out their
position quite well. He has some good ideas, and as Brian had said, if we
extend the deadline, we'll be back here next year. Joe said he agreed that
we cannot keep extending, but he thinks that the date chosen initially was
too early. When he brought it up a year ago, he expressed these concerns
and it was said that we will re-evaluate things next year and see where we
are at. He knows they won't be ready by August. In most cases he would
agree that extending deadlines is not a good idea. Now it seems like he is
looking at a date that was too short in the first place. Now it seems like
some members have a pretty hard stance on it without admitting the
possibility that we screwed this up. Gerv said he doesn't remember who
talked about reevaluating it, but proponents of the ballot ought to look
into that. Stephen said the issue was raised that it is dependent upon
third party vendors. Those CAs who are dependent on third party vendors are
stuck. As we've worked on guidelines in the past we've left wiggle room
where there would be potential problems.
It was asked whether anybody besides Wells Fargo would have trouble.
Stephen said Quo Vadis is going to be pushed to comply by the deadline.
Proponents of the ballot said they support a proposal to exempt sub CAs that
are constrained, and that helps on Microsoft on the OCSP side. There was
discussion about Mozilla audit requirements and technical constraints and
Tom asked about whether this had to do with exempting subCAs from audit
requirements. Ben said he thought where Tom was going was that Wells Fargo
doesn't issue a whole lot of SSL certificates. Phill said that doesn't
matter (the Microsoft CA that got busted in the Flame attack was so small
that it didn't get noticed) - even just one CA that isn't able to provide
strong certificate status capabilities is a problem. Ben agreed and noted
that if Opera, Google, and Mozilla are not in favor of the ballot, then even
if Microsoft and Apple voted yes, and assuming that all browsers vote, then
it likely won't pass.
Ballots 101 and 102 are not that controversial, and voting starts Friday.
Ballot 103 doesn't seem controversial. Ben will accept comments from Rob to
change subsection 5 from "must" to "should". Ben said if he could get
Comodo and Mozilla to endorse it he can move forward with it.
6. News and announcements: NIST comment deadline is next week. Dean said
that recent posts from Netcraft have shed a negative light on the industry,
and it is incumbent for all of us to improve the reputation of both CAs and
7. Agenda planning for Munich: Ben noted that Tuesday morning we'll talk
about industry / browser developments and about Webtrust, ETSI, and better
collaboration on audit frameworks. Tuesday afternoon we'll talk about the
NIST CP document and improving CA security frameworks and then any issues on
the issues lists of the CABF guidelines. We'll wrap up Tuesday afternoon
going over improvements to the CA/B Forum website. Tuesday's dinner, in
fact the meeting site, is hosted by Symantec. Tuesday we'll wrap up by 4PM
because there is something planned. Dinner Wednesday night is on our own,
but Symantec has a place picked out for us. Wednesday morning we've left a
slot open to discuss things that came up during Tuesday's discussions that
we can pick back up. As for logistics, there are several slots still to
fill in, whether it is for 15 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes or even 60
minutes. The rest of the discussion before lunch on Wednesday will cover
improvements to revocation/certificate status, subCA technical constraints,
and a review of governance issues like the bylaws and IPR policy. After
lunch we'll discuss the Netcraft article on revocation and browser behaviors
related to the work of the WPKOPS group. After a break we'll discuss
reinvigorating EV SSL and then wrap up by 4PM again. Thursday morning
we'll review the status of Certificate Transparency, OCSP Stapling and other
technological solutions for providing better certificate status. After a
break we'll spend two hours reviewing the Baseline Requirements for Code
8. Any Other Business: None.
9. Next teleconference: Next call will be two weeks after our face-to-face
meeting (June 27th).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public