[cabfpub] Draft CAA motion
gerv at mozilla.org
Mon Nov 7 16:01:39 UTC 2016
Here's a draft motion to make CAA mandatory. We may not be able to start
the process properly for a while, but I'd like to get the motion text
*Ballot XXX - Make CAA Checking Mandatory
The following motion has been proposed by Gervase Markham of Mozilla and
endorsed by XXX of XXX and XXX of XXX:
*Statement of Intent*:
Certificate Authority Authorization (CAA) is a DNS Resource Record
defined in RFC 6844 - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6844/ ,
published in January 2013. It allows a DNS domain name holder to specify
one or more Certification Authorities (CAs) authorized to issue
certificates for that domain and, by consequence, that no other CAs are
The intent of this motion is to make it mandatory for CAs to check CAA
records at issuance time for all certificates issued, and to prevent
issuance if a CAA record is found which does not permit issuance by that
CA. This therefore allows domain owners to set an issuance policy which
will be respected by all publicly-trusted CAs, and allows them to
mitigate the problem that the public CA trust system is only as strong
as its weakest CA.
Note that CAA is already a defined term in the BRs and so does not need
definitional text to be provided by this motion.
*-- MOTION BEGINS --*
Add the following text to section XXX ("XXX") of the Baseline Requirements:
As part of the issuance process, after all other validation has been
completed. The CA must check for a CAA record for all domains in the
certificate according to the procedure in RFC 6844, following the
processing instructions set down in RFC 6844 for any records found.
If the CA issues, they must do so within 10
minutes of the check passing.
This stipulation does not prevent the CA from checking CAA records
at other points in the issuance process.
RFC 6844 requires that CAs "MUST NOT issue a certificate unless
either (1) the certificate request is consistent with the applicable
CAA Resource Record set or (2) an exception specified in the
relevant Certificate Policy or Certification Practices Statement
applies." For issuances conforming to these Baseline Requirements,
CAs MUST NOT rely on any exceptions specified in their CP or CPS.
CAs MUST keep records of the responses to all CAA DNS requests. CAs
are permitted to treat a record lookup failure as permission to
* the failure is outside the CA's infrastructure;
* the lookup has been retried at least once; and
* the domain does not use DNSSEC.
CAs MUST log issuances that were prevented by an adverse CAA record
in sufficient detail to provide feedback to the CAB Forum on the
circumstances, and SHOULD report such requests to the contact(s)
stipulated in the CAA iodef record(s), if present. CAs are not
expected to support URL schemes in the iodef record other than
mailto: or https:.
Update section 2.2 ("Publication of Information") of the Baseline
Requirements, to remove the following text:
Effective as of 15 April 2015, section 4.2 of a CA's Certificate Policy and/or Certification
Practice Statement (section 4.1 for CAs still conforming to RFC 2527) SHALL state whether
the CA reviews CAA Records, and if so, the CA’s policy or practice on processing CAA Records
for Fully Qualified Domain Names. The CA SHALL log all actions taken, if any, consistent with
its processing practice.
and replace it with:
Effective as of XXX, section 4.2 of a CA's Certificate Policy and/or Certification
Practice Statement (section 4.1 for CAs still conforming to RFC 2527) SHALL state that
the CA reviews CAA Records for all issuances, and the CA’s policy or practice on processing CAA Records
for Fully Qualified Domain Names. It shall clearly specify the set of Issuer Domain Names that the CA
recognises as permitting it to issue. The CA SHALL log all actions taken, if any, consistent with
its processing practice.
Add the following text to the appropriate place in section 1.6.3 ("References"):
RFC6844, Request for Comments: 6844, DNS Certification Authority
Authorization (CAA) Resource Record, Hallam-Baker, Stradling,
*-- MOTION ENDS -- *
The review period for this ballot shall commence at 2200 UTC on XXX, and
will close at 2200 UTC on XXX. Unless the motion is withdrawn during the
review period, the voting period will start immediately thereafter and
will close at XXX. Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to
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 XXX members – at least that many members must participate in
the ballot, either by voting in favor, voting against, or abstaining.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public