[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot 203: Formation of Network Security Working Group

Virginia Fournier vfournier at apple.com
Mon Jun 5 22:19:17 UTC 2017

Ryan and others commenting on WG formation,

Please attend our next Governance WG meeting to make sure your concerns/questions/comments are heard.  It would be fantastic to have more than 3 people at our next meeting!  Also, please provide feedback on documents as they are circulated.  Thanks!

Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ vmf at apple.com

On Jun 5, 2017, at 3:00 PM, public-request at cabforum.org wrote:

Send Public mailing list submissions to
	public at cabforum.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	public-request at cabforum.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	public-owner at cabforum.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Public digest..."

Today's Topics:

  1. Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot 203: Formation of Network Security
     Working Group (Ryan Sleevi)
  2. Re: Ballot 201 - .onion Revisions (Curt Spann)


Message: 1
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:41:33 -0400
From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
To: Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com>
Cc: "CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List" <public at cabforum.org>,
	Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot 203: Formation of Network
	Security Working Group
	<CACvaWvbxueY39YyWZ9MEvgqNvtyRXORFqjmuoR7XiFfLRM8cmw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com> wrote:
> Is there a concern if the meeting is a ?subgroup? or ?committee? of the
> full Forum and clearly states that such a meeting may not approve minutes
> as Final, process applications to be Members, or deal with items sent to
> the Questions mailing list? This appears to be what is contemplated in
> the bylaws, which refer to subgroups and committees in 5.1(a) and 5.2 (a)
> and (b) and 2.2(g).

To be clear: There is zero objection over meeting during the F2F to discuss
this topic. We are extremely supportive of the continued discussion around
this topic.

As a one-off, this does not seem to pose any risk, especially since it will
be taking part of the broader Forum Meeting (or, as mentioned as also
possible, the regular Forum Teleconference). That's why there does not seem
to be an urgent need to charter the WG in advance of the F2F, as the means
and process already exists.

To your other points, those are all reasons why Google has raised concerns
over similar proposals for subgroups and committees - the need and desire
for a clear definition of scope and purpose, particularly around
subgroup/committee, since one reading is that they constitute Forum
Meetings or Forum Teleconferences, and thus allow for the approval of
minutes, members, and answers without the broader Forum participation, or,
historically, have failed to include the necessary draft and final agendas
and final minutes. I certainly hope that the Governance WG is contemplating
these matters, as they've been raised in the Forum at large in the past.

The hope is for some form of sensible outcome that is able to meet
everyone's needs, which hopefully be met by the following:
- Agenda Item on the CA/Browser Forum discussing this topic
 - Option 1: Have it on the Wed/Thurs with the Forum 'at large'
 - Option 2: Simply declare that the Forum Meeting also encompasses
Tuesday (updating the Draft Agenda), that the sole Agenda item shall be
this topic, and that the Chair and Vice-Chair shall not trigger any of the
items related to Forum Meetings that may be triggered in a Forum Meeting
- Charter a WG with an explicit, defined date
 - If the WG members feel three years is appropriate, sure, go for three
years. Just pick a hard date, and the only possible conclusion is sooner,
rather than any form of 'automatic' extension, 'novel' voting, strawpolls,
assent votes, etc.
 - As the Governance WG works through its proposals, it can always be
rechartered to incorporate them, which might include any of those forms of
simplified extension.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170605/e7509b91/attachment-0001.html>


Message: 2
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 15:00:00 -0700
From: Curt Spann <cspann at apple.com>
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 201 - .onion Revisions
Message-ID: <F0FDCCF4-F6CC-4CC8-B57C-54CBE58618CB at apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Apple votes Yes.


> On May 25, 2017, at 12:50 PM, Ben Wilson via Public <public at cabforum.org> wrote:
> Ballot 201 - .Onion Revisions
> This ballot is meant to cure any potential problems with Ballot 198, which may have been invalid due to ambiguities in what was presented to the Forum for vote. This Ballot 201 attempts to clarify Appendix F of the EV Guidelines concerning the Tor Service Descriptor Hash extension and that inclusion of the extension in the TBSCertificate is required.
> The following motion has been proposed by Jeremy Rowley of DigiCert and endorsed by Ryan Sleevi of Google and Wayne Thayer of GoDaddy to introduce new Final Maintenance Guidelines for the "Guidelines for the Issuance and Management of Extended Validation Certificates" (EV Guidelines).
> Attached is a PDF with a redline showing how Appendix F of the current EV Guidelines will be amended.
> Part 1:
> The CA/Browser Forum, recognizing that Ballot 198 did not include a redline version against the current Final Maintenance Guidelines, thereby constitutes an invalid Ballot. As a consequence, the Forum agrees that the changes shall not be made to the appropriate Final Maintenance Guideline, and as such, no IPR Review Notice is in force for Ballot 198:
> Part 2:
> Revise Appendix F, Section 1, to read as follows:
> Appendix F ? Issuance of Certificates for .onion Domain Names
> A CA may issue an EV Certificate with .onion in the right-most label of the Domain Name provided that issuance complies with the requirements set forth in this Appendix:
> 1. CAB Forum Tor Service Descriptor Hash extension (
> The CA MUST include the CAB Forum Tor Service Descriptor Hash in the TBSCertificate to convey hashes of keys related to .onion addresses. The CA MUST include the Tor Service Descriptor Hash extension using the following format:
> cabf-TorServiceDescriptorHash OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { }
> SEQUENCE ( 1..MAX ) of TorServiceDescriptorHash
> TorServiceDescriptorHash:: = SEQUENCE {
> onionURI UTF8String
> algorithm AlgorithmIdentifier
> subjectPublicKeyHash BIT STRING
> }
> Where the AlgorithmIdentifier is a hashing algorithm (defined in RFC 6234) performed over the DER-encoding of an ASN.1 SubjectPublicKey of the .onion service and SubjectPublicKeyHash is the hash output.
> --Motion Ends--
> The procedure for approval of this Final Maintenance Guideline ballot is as follows (exact start and end times may be adjusted to comply with applicable Bylaws and IPR Agreement):
> BALLOT 201 Status: Final Maintenance Guideline            Start time (22:00 UTC)   End time (22:00 UTC)
> Discussion (7 to 14 days)                                                           May 25, 2017                    June 1, 2017
> Vote for approval (7 days)                                                         June 1, 2017                      June 8, 2017
> If a vote of the Forum approves this ballot, the Chair will initiate a 30-day IPR Review Period by sending out an IPR Review Notice.
> After 30 days of announcing the IPR Review period by the Chair:
> If Exclusion Notice(s) are filed, this ballot approval is rescinded and a PAG will be created; or
> If no Exclusion Notices are filed, this ballot becomes effective at end of the IPR Review Period.
> From Bylaw 2.3: If the Draft Guideline Ballot is proposing a Final Maintenance Guideline, such ballot will include a redline or comparison showing the set of changes from the Final Guideline section(s) intended to become a Final Maintenance Guideline, and need not include a copy of the full set of guidelines. Such redline or comparison shall be made against the Final Guideline section(s) as they exist at the time a ballot is proposed, and need not take into consideration other ballots that may be proposed subsequently, except as provided in Bylaw Section 2.3(j).
> Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread on the Public list. 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: https://cabforum.org/members/ <https://cabforum.org/members/>
> 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 half of the number of currently active Members, which is the average number of Member organizations that have participated in the previous three Forum-wide meetings (both teleconferences and face-to-face meetings).  Under Bylaw 2.2(g), at least the required quorum number must participate in the ballot for the ballot to be valid, either by voting in favor, voting against, or abstaining.
> <Ballot-201-Appendix F.pdf>_______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170605/81863f28/attachment.html>


Subject: Digest Footer

Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org


End of Public Digest, Vol 62, Issue 24

More information about the Public mailing list