[cabfpub] Draft Ballot 185 - Limiting the Lifetime of Certificates: User input

Jeremy Rowley jeremy.rowley at digicert.com
Thu Feb 9 15:01:38 MST 2017


That’s the question and the area where there’s insufficient data to respond. The ballot happened quickly enough that I doubt most of us have had time to evaluate with the customers how long of a transition period they would need. 

 

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 2:58 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Draft Ballot 185 - Limiting the Lifetime of Certificates: User input

 

Except it doesn't manifest as any real issues until June 2018.

 

Or do we believe 16 months is too short a time to make changes?

 

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Jeremy Rowley via Public <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> > wrote:

Right - I think the primary issue is this comes into effect on May 7th of this year. It takes a lot of subscribers by surprise.

-----Original Message-----
From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> ] On Behalf Of Dean Coclin via Public
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 2:42 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >

Cc: Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com <mailto:Dean_Coclin at symantec.com> >
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Draft Ballot 185 - Limiting the Lifetime of Certificates: User input

Jody,
I don't think you will get too many people disagreeing with your statement. But I think the issue for most is the implementation timeline, in light of other programmed roadmap actions and customer education/notification which must accompany this. That seems to be ignored by the proponents and doesn't show much respect toward building consensus in a consensus organization.

-----Original Message-----
From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> ] On Behalf Of Jody Cloutier via Public
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 12:48 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >
Cc: Jody Cloutier <jodycl at microsoft.com <mailto:jodycl at microsoft.com> >
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Draft Ballot 185 - Limiting the Lifetime of Certificates: User input

I'm the first to admit that I haven't been following this thread as closely as I would like, but, from Microsoft's perspective, we want shorter certificates and not longer. We would certainly endorse a ballot that would mandate shorter certificate life for the very reason stated below: if we want to eliminate X we would know exactly when the last cert will expire. We've gone so far as to consider mandating this as a program requirement. Anyway, that's our .02.

-----Original Message-----
From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> ] On Behalf Of Christian Heutger via Public
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 9:31 AM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >
Cc: Christian Heutger <ch at psw.net <mailto:ch at psw.net> >
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Draft Ballot 185 - Limiting the Lifetime of Certificates: User input

> I can see why there's some confusion here :-) Ryan is not arguing that we should switch to 13 months so that we will always in future move from "let's eliminate Algorithm X" to "Algorithm X is gone" in 13 months. One would always consider lots of data points in setting such a timetable. His point is that 3.25 > year certs make it very hard to move faster than that in _any_ deprecation scenario, whether simple or complex.

I don’t believe, moving faster is required for normal situations. If there are issues arising needing faster reaction, revocation and reissue is still a possible way. For normal situations, enterprises need to be able to react and they can’t move faster. Why are most enterprises skipping one Windows version and roll out the next one? As they are not able to move faster in controlled enterprise security environments.

> I don't agree that replacing your certificates once a year requires automation. It's made easier by automation, but it doesn't require it.

As I understood the discussion, 1 year is the first step on a road to months or weeks.

> I'm sure there are plenty of CAs, big and small, who would assert their automation solutions are secure. :-)

But as you know, there is nothing, which is 100% secure and if we talk about certificates in their sense of encryption and(!) identity assurance, such job shouldn’t be based on automatism.


_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org <mailto:Public at cabforum.org> 
https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/DJOabsexgZpqRhK4Bm0vY0LCU_A7fLTFBbYldNpVnwE=?d=O1780y8FKUGo97xfvWHTKyIZeLcKtes6qAn4x0w1FTcgk5APekHvbWPQEH7DJKKt86J-rK8MmQWb8MH5rrFNOCm_JHEgd7vcX5lVbf2RxzVCwdJ4l63cGU4HF0VjnaSKL32Jyn_-t-KtIXT0Peegw5RGNHQ3tXh9YgFTu5KBlfPYQwDhDMOOHSCbjQj7o2WlJk5_5ywFzgoNzW-e4NvXRwXik1Mb5KxCweruj5QsyFxvFEDqEEe1TDHsNxnySZZrvRWI64dzOAZweXUwgCWaFhk4qpCAYVS3Avfwjf15uFGiF3YRD4Whv3sR8J5Vi9rsF4Hua61z37eoD50mdLqGMZEvlS63sa96REDIZQ11xHwK2dfeU1BZQ2KFqULn5IRC64oWROmlEOPjvooJM5XE9PXGJXebHssYudrapea5M2x1oscE-yquOWznFJAwvQkluFnB37Pkgk_YT6HwB-tIokqpHjXdWfJ9aHLY7VATlUXIDdo%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpublic
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org <mailto:Public at cabforum.org> 
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public


_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org <mailto:Public at cabforum.org> 
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170209/af28cd57/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4964 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170209/af28cd57/attachment.bin>


More information about the Public mailing list