[cabfpub] Ballot 160 - Amend Section 4 of Baseline Requirements

Tue Feb 2 12:01:32 UTC 2016

Comodo votes ‘Yes’.

Regards
Robin Alden

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ben Wilson
Sent: 26 January 2016 15:03
To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
Cc: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 160 - Amend Section 4 of Baseline Requirements

Thanks, Ryan.  Here is the amended Ballot 160:

Ballot 160 - Amend Section 4 of Baseline Requirements

The Policy Review Working Group has reviewed Section 4 of the Baseline Requirements and, as a result, suggests that certain changes be made. Therefore, the following motion has been proposed by Ben Wilson of DigiCert and endorsed by Tim Hollebeek of Trustwave and Kirk Hall of TrendMicro: 

-- MOTION BEGINS -- 

1) In Sections 4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.5.2, 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3, 4.6.4, 4.6.5, 4.6.6, 4.6.7., 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4, 4.7.5, 4.7.6, 4.7.7, 4.8.1, 4.8.2, 4.8.3, 4.8.4, 4.8.5, 4.8.6, 4.8.7, 4.9.4, 4.9.8, 4.10.3, 4.11, and 4.12.1, add "No stipulation." 

2) In Sections 4.9.14, 4.9.15, 4.9.16, and 4.12.2, add "Not applicable." 

3) In Section 4.5.1, add "See Section 9.6.3, provisions 2. and 4." 

4) In Section 4.9.2, add "The Subscriber, RA, or Issuing CA can initiate revocation. Additionally, Subscribers, Relying Parties, Application Software Suppliers, and other third parties may submit Certificate Problem Reports informing the Issuing CA of reasonable cause to revoke the certificate. " 

5) In Section 4.9.6, add "No stipulation. (Note: Following certificate issuance, a certificate may be revoked for reasons stated in Section 4.9.1. Therefore, relying parties should check the revocation status of all certificates that contain a CDP or OCSP pointer.)" 

-- MOTION ENDS -- 

The review period for this ballot shall commence at 2300 UTC on 21 January 2016, and will close at 2300 UTC on 28 January 2016. Unless the motion is withdrawn during the review period, the voting period will start immediately thereafter and will close at 2300 UTC on 4 February 2016. Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread. 

A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear 'yes' in the response. A vote against must indicate a clear 'no' in the response. A vote to abstain must indicate a clear 'abstain' in the response. Unclear responses will not be counted. The latest vote received from any representative of a voting member before the close of the voting period will be counted. Voting members are listed here: https://cabforum.org/members/ 

In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes cast by members in the CA category and greater than 50% of the votes cast by members in the browser category must be in favor. Quorum is currently nine (9) members– at least nine members must participate in the ballot, either by voting in favor, voting against, or abstaining. 

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 8:05 PM
To: Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com <mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com> >
Cc: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 160 - Amend Section 4 of Baseline Requirements

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com <mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com> > wrote:

Ballot 160 - Amend Section 4 of Baseline Requirements

The Policy Review Working Group has reviewed Section 4 of the Baseline Requirements and, as a result, suggests that certain changes be made. Therefore, the following motion has been proposed by Ben Wilson of DigiCert and endorsed by Tim Hollebeek of Trustwave and Kirk Hall of TrendMicro: 

-- MOTION BEGINS --

4) In Section 4.9.2, add "The Subscriber can initiate revocation. Third parties can request revocation in accordance with Section 4.9.3. See also Section 3.4."

Ben, sorry for the delay in replying to your suggestion. I provided the justification in the other thread (Ballot 159), but my suggestion was:

"The Subscriber, RA, or Issuing CA can initiate revocation. Additionally, Subscribers, Relying Parties, Application Software Suppliers, and other third parties may submit Certificate Problem Reports [to the Issuing CA? informing the issuing CA?] of reasonable cause to revoke the certificate."

How does that work for you and the endorsers?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160202/40188f68/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5152 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160202/40188f68/attachment-0001.p7s>