[cabfpub] Proposed new ballot on IP Addresses in SANs
sleevi at google.com
Thu Apr 21 13:23:27 UTC 2016
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Jody Cloutier <jodycl at microsoft.com> wrote:
> Ryan, I'm not sure I understand why Google is so intent on this new course
> of public shaming on this matter and others currently under discussion, but
> if it helps to do the right thing, then fine. The fact is that the
> requirement was not addressed, and we need to figure out how to fix the
> issue for all of our customers. Microsoft has addressed this in Windows 10,
> but we are not currently planning on back-porting this change to previous
> operating systems. As such, this change is needed or all of our customers
> will be affected.
Symantec has 8 months to investigate a solution that doesn't require
violating the BRs nor require violating RFC 5280. They've admitted, by
Rick, that they've instead chosen to continue to violate the BRs, and are
looking to change the BRs to retroactively make this behaviour acceptable.
That is unquestionably deserving of censure, on its own merits, regardless
of the option.
Had Symantec shown that the solution provided to them - which would have
functioned properly for all Microsoft users - was not in fact viable, in a
timely fashion, and for reasons they could explain, that's certainly worthy
of consideration. But that's clearly not the case here, and that's
unacceptable behaviour for a publicly trusted CA.
The burden of demonstrating why the proposed solution doesn't work should
exist with Symantec: They're the only one that can speak to their customers
needs, they're the only ones who can investigate the technical viability
(as a publicly trusted CA), and they're the only ones who can speak as to
why such a solution may not be possible. If the reasons are "because we
don't want to", that should seriously inform the response to a ballot, but
if there are reasons such as "This doesn't work for reason X", then that
could be a meaningfully compelling reason.
However, the idea that a Forum member would actively, intentionally, and
knowingly violate the BRs in order that they may continue to sell
certificates to customers, participating in defining standards that their
competitors are obligated to follow but which they themselves do not intend
to, and potentially profiting off the customers for which their competitors
are obligated to refuse but for which they will clearly accept (in
contravention of the BRs), speaks seriously to acting in bad faith and in
an anti-competitive manner. And that's deeply troubling.
To be clear: The censure is for the behaviour, not for the proposal. Given
that this proposal was raised in the past, addressed in the past, and in
the 8 months sense, either no good-faith effort was put forward OR no
good-faith effort is communicated, is a serious and egregious breach of
public trust, and thus deserving of strong and direct response, because if
that pattern is practiced and encouraged, it undermines and eliminates any
value in the Forum itself.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public