[cabfpub] Voting has started on Ballot 214 - CAA Discovery CNAME Errata

Jacob Hoffman-Andrews jsha at letsencrypt.org
Fri Sep 22 14:04:13 MST 2017


I believe a transition period is not necessary, because it's entirely
possible to operate the RFC 6844 algorithm and the RFC 6844 + erratum 5065
algorithm in tandem, without significantly impacting issuance.

The lookups done under erratum 5065 are a strict subset of those done under
RFC 6844, so in the common case where there is no CAA record present, any
RFC 6844 implementation is also compliant with erratum 5065.

The only situation where they conflict is when there is a CAA record
permitting issuance on the parent of a CNAME involved in CAA lookup, but a
different CAA record allowing issuance on a direct parent of the domain
being validated. The simple way to handle a transition while being assured
of compliance is to block issuance if either RFC 6844 or erratum 5065 says
to block issuance. Due to the rarity of this scenario, this should not
decrease successful issuance rates.

Given that a transition period isn't necessary, I think it would be a
mistake to delay the ballot to add it in. There are clear problems with RFC
6844 that are causing live problems for many CA subscribers. The solutions
have been known and agreed upon since March. Let's not delay them any
further.

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Doug Beattie via Public <
public at cabforum.org> wrote:

> In light of recent discussions about a phase in period, GlobalSign changes
> their vote to NO for Ballot 214.
>
>
>
> *From:* Doug Beattie
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 21, 2017 7:34 AM
> *To:* 'CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List' <public at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [cabfpub] Voting has started on Ballot 214 - CAA Discovery
> CNAME Errata
>
>
>
> GlobalSign votes YES
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] *On Behalf Of *Kirk
> Hall via Public
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 8:56 PM
> *To:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Voting has started on Ballot 214 - CAA Discovery
> CNAME Errata
>
>
>
> Correcting subject line to Ballot 214
>
>
>
> *From:* Kirk Hall
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 5:55 PM
> *To:* CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* Voting has started on Ballot 21 - CAA Discovery CNAME Errata
>
>
>
> Voting has started on Ballot 214 – CAA Discovery CNAME Errata.
>
>
>
> Technically, the Discussion period ended at 22:00 UTC today (which was
> 3:00 pm Pacific Time).  Josh, as the Proposer of the Ballot, accepted Gerv
> and Tim’s email suggestion as to a 3-month transition period, but this
> acceptance occurred at 5:05 pm Pacific Time, two hours after the end of the
> discussion period.  Also, we don’t have specific amendment language to
> consider, only a concept.
>
>
>
> Regrettably, I think it’s too late for this transition period amendment, *so
> we are voting on Ballot 214 as originally proposed* (see below).  If
> there is a need for a transition period, I think it’s best if it’s proposed
> by a separate ballot with specific language.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org
> <public-bounces at cabforum.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jacob Hoffman-Andrews via
> Public
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 13, 2017 2:31 PM
> *To:* CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL][cabfpub] Ballot 214: CAA Discovery CNAME Errata
>
>
>
> Kicking off the official discussion period for ballot 214 today per
> discussion with Phillip.
>
>
>
> The following motion has been proposed by Phillip Hallam-Baker of Comodo
> Group Inc. and endorsed by Gervase Markham of Mozilla and Mads Egil
> Henriksveen of Buypass.
>
> -- MOTION BEGINS --
>
> In the Baseline Requirements v1.4.9 Section 3.2.2.8. CAA Records
>
> Strike:
>
> As part of the issuance process, the CA MUST check for a CAA record for
> each dNSName in the subjectAltName extension of the certificate to be
> issued, 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 the TTL of the CAA record, or 8 hours, whichever is
> greater.
>
> Replace with:
>
> As part of the issuance process, the CA MUST check for CAA records and
> follow the processing instructions for any records found, for each dNSName
> in the subjectAltName extension of the certificate to be issued, as
> specified in RFC 6844 as amended by Errata 5065 (Appendix A). If the CA
> issues, they MUST do so within the TTL of the CAA record, or 8 hours,
> whichever is greater.
>
>
> In the Baseline Requirements ADD an Appendix A that reads:
>
> Appendix A -- RFC6844 Errata 5065
>
> The following errata report has been held for document update for RFC6844,
> "DNS Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) Resource Record".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5065
>
> --------------------------------------
> Status: Held for Document Update
> Type: Technical
>
> Reported by: Phillip Hallam-Baker <philliph at comodo.com> Date Reported:
> 2017-07-10 Held by: EKR (IESG)
>
> Section: 4
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>    Let CAA(X) be the record set returned in response to performing a CAA
>    record query on the label X, P(X) be the DNS label immediately above
>    X in the DNS hierarchy, and A(X) be the target of a CNAME or DNAME
>    alias record specified at the label X.
>
>    o  If CAA(X) is not empty, R(X) = CAA (X), otherwise
>
>    o  If A(X) is not null, and R(A(X)) is not empty, then R(X) =
>       R(A(X)), otherwise
>
>    o  If X is not a top-level domain, then R(X) = R(P(X)), otherwise
>
>    o  R(X) is empty.
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>    Let CAA(X) be the record set returned in response to performing a CAA
>    record query on the label X, P(X) be the DNS label immediately above
>    X in the DNS hierarchy, and A(X) be the target of a CNAME or DNAME
>    alias record chain specified at the label X.
>
>    o  If CAA(X) is not empty, R(X) = CAA (X), otherwise
>
>    o  If A(X) is not null, and CAA(A(X)) is not empty, then R(X) =
>       CAA(A(X)), otherwise
>
>    o  If X is not a top-level domain, then R(X) = R(P(X)), otherwise
>
>    o  R(X) is empty.
>
>   Thus, when a search at node X returns a CNAME record, the CA will
>   follow the CNAME record chain to its target. If the target label
>   contains a CAA record, it is returned.
>
>   Otherwise, the CA continues the search at
>   the parent of node X.
>
>   Note that the search does not include the parent of a target of a
>   CNAME record (except when the CNAME points back to its own path).
>
>   To prevent resource exhaustion attacks, CAs SHOULD limit the length of
>   CNAME chains that are accepted. However CAs MUST process CNAME
>   chains that contain 8 or fewer CNAME records.
>
> --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 214 Status:   Final Maintenance Guideline    Start time (22:00
> UTC)    End time (22:00 UTC)
>
> Discussion begins now and ends September 20, 2017 22:00 UTC (7 days)
>
> Vote for approval begins September 20, 2017 22:00 UTC and ends September
> 27, 2017 22:00 UTC (7 days)
>
> If vote approves ballot: Review Period (Chair to send Review Notice) (30
> days). If Exclusion Notice(s) filed, ballot approval is rescinded and PAG
> to be created. If no Exclusion Notices filed, ballot becomes effective at
> end of Review Period.    Upon filing of Review Notice by Chair 30 days
> after filing of Review Notice by Chair
>
> 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/
>
> 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 shown on
> CA/Browser Forum wiki. 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170922/3998392e/attachment.html>


More information about the Public mailing list