[cabfpub] Draft CAA motion (2)

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Thu Nov 10 18:38:59 UTC 2016

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Steve Medin via Public <
public at cabforum.org> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 12:40 PM
> > To: Steve Medin <Steve_Medin at symantec.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public
> > Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> > Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Draft CAA motion (2)
> >
> > But here's another suggestion. Instead of mandating CAA in Mozilla
> policy,
> > we'll just say that issuing in the face of an adverse CAA record is a
> > serious
> > misissuance. Then, you'd be free to not check it as often as you liked,
> > relying
> > on your systems and contracts to save you - and the first time they went
> > wrong, we'd untrust your intermediate or remove your EV indicator or some
> > other sanction. How would that be? :-)
> >
> > Gerv
> Well, that depends on the validity of a contract from the customer that
> absolves the CA from the requirement to check CAA within their service.

I don't really understand why you feel this way - that is, the validity of
the contract doesn't seem to have any material impact on the BRs. Or, put
differently, contracts neither replace nor reduce the scope of the BRs. So
if Gerv put forward a ballot that said "caveat CA", and even if you had a
contract that said you didn't have to, if the customer - or anyone else who
checked the CAA record -  pointed out to the contrary, then it would be
treated as a serious misissuance.

So how does the contract matter?

> Let customers opt out when they trust their CA and its audits and it's no
> longer CA policy or browsers trusting CAs. Let customers adopt CAA to block
> other CAs that do not hold such a contract.

Let's imagine we accept this argument. Would you be open to requiring that
the contract must be renegotiated any time there is a change in CAA, to
ensure that, at all times, the customer is making an informed decision?
Quite frankly, sometimes it takes browsers to protect users from predatory
CAs, and so if say there was a change that affected or improved the
security of CAA checking, the customer should be informed. Such a
renegotiating-of-agreement clause would help prevent CAs from
misrepresenting CAA (as some have), allow the customer flexibility, and put
a burden of effort on the CA in order to replace the stronger technical
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20161110/82b2b4b5/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list