[cabfpub] Draft Agenda for CA-Browser Forum conference call on January 7th

Thu Jan 7 17:41:51 UTC 2016

Following up on this topic from today's call, I'd like to hear more from other constituents, namely browsers and auditors, what they would say to an intermediate named, "CATrust" (as an example). Peter mentioned that if that was a registered trademark and contained a country code, it should be fine.  I think we all agreed if it said, "CA Trust, GmbH" then that would not be an issue. But I'm curious what others think about the trademark example. I'm of the opinion that it would be difficult for a relying party to identify the CA from that trademark but that's not a strong feeling.

Thanks
Dean

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Bowen [mailto:pzb at amzn.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 6:36 PM
To: Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>
Cc: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Draft Agenda for CA-Browser Forum conference call on January 7th

My take on 7.1.2.2.h is that any name that passes 3.2.2.2 should be acceptable, subject to the same allowances as 7.1.4.2.2.b.  If the CA can validate that Admin GmbH is the legal name of an organization, then O=Admin is fine (and is not generic).  However if the name is Admin-Root-CA, Inc. then the first example does not pass, as the CN attribute has the full name not the O attribute.

I think the safest option is to choose a legal name (with or without the Inc, AG, A/S, GmbH, Pty Ltd, etc) for the O attribute.  Alternatively choose a registered trademark if that is desired (e.g. O=BlimpSSL while the company name is Lighter Than Air Security, Inc.).

> On Jan 6, 2016, at 10:56 AM, Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com> wrote:
> 
> Right, so in your first example, if it said, "Admin-Root-CA, Inc" or "Admin-Root-CA, GmbH", would folks consider that "generic"?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Bowen [mailto:pzb at amzn.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 1:52 PM
> To: Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>
> Cc: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Draft Agenda for CA-Browser Forum conference 
> call on January 7th
> 
> Based on previous discussions at the Mozilla policy forums, I think some examples of past names may help:
> 
> CN=Admin-Root-CA,OU=Certification Authorities,OU=Services,O=admin,C=ch
> CN=Alpha CA,O=Alpha,OU=Alpha CA
> CN=CFC Certificate Authority,OU=Internet Services,O=CFC 
> CN=rootca,OU=pki,O=global,C=ww CN=Intermediate Certificate DV SSL 
> CA,OU=Domain Validated SSL,O=Intermediate Certificate,C=NL 
> CN=UIS-Root-CA
> 
> I suspect that 7.1.2.2.h was written to try to avoid names like these.
> 
> Thanks,
> Peter
> 
>> On Jan 6, 2016, at 10:11 AM, Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I would like to better understand the context for the rule and 
>> provide some examples to see if they pass the test. This is a new 
>> item and has not been discussed before
>> 
>> Dean
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 6, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dean,
>>> 
>>> Any chance you could provide a preview or slightly more detailed summary of the 7.1.2.2.h topic?  I haven’t heard this come up from the WGs, but I might have missed an email over the holidays.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Peter
>>> 
>>>> On Jan 6, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I’ve added one item to the agenda during the former open slot.
>>>> 
>>>> Dean
>>>> 
>>>> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org
>>>> [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Dean Coclin
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 10:10 AM
>>>> To: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
>>>> Subject: [cabfpub] Draft Agenda for CA-Browser Forum conference 
>>>> call on January 7th
>>>> 
>>>> Here is the agenda for the first Forum call of 2016. We have one open slot if someone has anything new to discuss.
>>>> 
>>>> Note: Please announce yourself when dialing in. This helps in documenting attendance when recording is played back later.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Antitrust Statement: As you know, this meeting includes companies that compete against one another. This meeting is intended to discuss technical standards related to the provision of existing and new types of digital certificates without restricting competition in developing and marketing such certificates. This meeting is not intended to share competitively-sensitive information among competitors, and therefore all participants agree not to discuss or exchange information related to:
>>>> 
>>>> (a)  Pricing policies, pricing formulas, prices or other terms of 
>>>> sale;
>>>> (b)  Costs, cost structures, profit margins,
>>>> (c)   Pending or planned service offerings,
>>>> (d)  Customers, business, or marketing plans; or
>>>> (e)  The allocation of customers, territories, or products in any way.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Here is the proposed agenda:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Time
>>>> Start(UTC)
>>>> Stop
>>>> Slot
>>>> Description
>>>> Notes / Presenters
>>>> (Thur) 7th January 2016
>>>> 
>>>> 0:01
>>>> 16:00
>>>> 16:01
>>>> 1
>>>> Read Antitrust Statement
>>>> Robin
>>>> 0:02
>>>> 16:01
>>>> 16:03
>>>> 2
>>>> Roll Call
>>>> Dean
>>>> 0:01
>>>> 16:03
>>>> 16:04
>>>> 3
>>>> Review Agenda
>>>> Dean
>>>> 0:01
>>>> 16:04
>>>> 16:05
>>>> 4
>>>> Approve Minutes of 10 Dec 2015
>>>> Sent by Dean on Dec 21st
>>>> 0:05
>>>> 16:05
>>>> 16:10
>>>> 5
>>>> Upcoming Policy WG Ballots
>>>> Ben
>>>> 0:15
>>>> 16:10
>>>> 16:25
>>>> 6
>>>> Any further discussion on LV certs?
>>>> Jeremy and potential guest speaker
>>>> 0:10
>>>> 16:25
>>>> 16:35
>>>> 7
>>>> Proposed “Mis-issuance” Ballot from Opera Sigbjorn
>>>> 0:05
>>>> 16:35
>>>> 16:40
>>>> 8
>>>> Discussion of “generic names” as mentioned in BR 7.1.2.2.h Dean
>>>> 0:05
>>>> 16:40
>>>> 16:45
>>>> 9
>>>> PAG Status? and upcoming ballot
>>>> Ben
>>>> 0:05
>>>> 16:45
>>>> 16:50
>>>> 10
>>>> Validation Working GroupStatus Update and proposed ballots 
>>>> Jeremy/Kirk
>>>> 0:02
>>>> 16:50
>>>> 16:52
>>>> 11
>>>> Code Signing Working GroupStatus: Ballot results and next steps 
>>>> Dean
>>>> 0:02
>>>> 16:52
>>>> 16:54
>>>> 12
>>>> Policy Review Working Group Status Update Ben
>>>> 0:02
>>>> 16:54
>>>> 16:56
>>>> 13
>>>> Information Sharing Working Group Update Ben
>>>> 0:03
>>>> 16:56
>>>> 16:59
>>>> 14
>>>> Any Other Business – Bilbao date adjustment, update on Feb F2F 
>>>> meeting Dean
>>>> 0:00
>>>> 17:00
>>>> 17:00
>>>> 15
>>>> Next teleconference scheduled for Jan 21st.  
>>>> 0:00
>>>> 17:00
>>>> 17:00
>>>> 16
>>>> Adjourn
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Public mailing list
>>>> Public at cabforum.org
>>>> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5747 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160107/59f0850e/attachment-0001.p7s>