[cabfpub] Ballot 161 - Notification of incorrect issuance

Jeremy Rowley jeremy.rowley at digicert.com
Sat Jan 30 21:41:28 UTC 2016

We have some reservations about this ballot, although they are not identical to Doug's. Instead, we see this ballot as fairly duplicative of the efforts already invested in Certificate Transparency.  Creating another reporting mechanism, when we've just recently had everyone implement CT, seems like a waste of resources that would be better spent on moving towards mandatory logging of all certificates. We'd much rather see a ballot that accelerates CT adoption over these more ambiguous reporting requirements.  If every cert is logged, the monitors can easily parse the information for relevant BR/EV compliance.  

-----Original Message-----
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Doug Beattie
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 11:54 AM
To: Sigbjørn Vik; public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 161 - Notification of incorrect issuance

GlobalSign has some serious reservations about this ballot.  I've sent this comment previously, but I'll send it again now that we are in the formal comment period.  

I feel strongly that the CABF, as a standards forum, should be focused on improving security and defining strong standards, but that compliance is a completely different responsibility.  We have WebTrust for CA auditors and root programs which do this today. We don’t want the BRs to encompass the WT for CAs audit requirements.   If the Root store operators and/or WT want to define compliance monitoring standards/initiatives that's fine, but I'm against CABF levying compliance reporting requirements.

Doug Beattie

-----Original Message-----
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Sigbjørn Vik
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 3:32 AM
To: public at cabforum.org
Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot 161 - Notification of incorrect issuance

Ballot 161 - Notification of incorrect issuance

Based on extensive discussions in the forum, Sigbjørn Vik from Opera proposes the following ballot, endorsed by Ryan Sleevi from Google and Gervase Markham from Mozilla.


The following text is added as a sub-section to section 2.2 of the Baseline Requirements:

2.2.1 Notification of incorrect issuance

In the event that a CA issues a certificate in violation of these requirements, the CA SHALL publicly disclose a report within one week of becoming aware of the violation. A link to the report SHALL simultaneously be sent to incidents at cabforum.org.

Effective 01-Jul-16, the CA SHALL in its Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement announce where such reports will be found. The location SHALL be as accessible as the CP/CPS.

The report SHALL publicize details about what the error was, what caused the error, time of issuance and discovery, and public certificates for all issuer certificates in the trust chain.

The report SHALL publicize the full public certificate, with the following exception: For certificates issued prior to 01-Mar-16 the report MAY truncate Subject Distinguished Name fields and subjectAltName extension values to the registerable domain name.

The report SHALL be made available to the CAs Qualified Auditor for the next Audit Report.


The review period for this ballot shall commence at 2300 UTC on 29 January 2016, and will close at 2300 UTC on 5 February 2016. Unless the motion is withdrawn during the review period, the voting period will start immediately thereafter and will close at 2300 UTC on 12 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:

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.

Sigbjørn Vik
Opera Software
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4964 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160130/0d5aebd7/attachment-0001.p7s>

More information about the Public mailing list