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

[Kirk Hall]

Ryan, of course the browsers can make any rules they like – neither I nor anyone else has questioned that.

But likewise, the CA/Browser Forum can make any rules it likes, and it (like any Legislature in the world) can adopt its rules in the manner I described below, including retroactively making changes to rules that have been adopted.  I can provide numerous examples if you like.

So it could be that the Forum retroactively excuses brief non-compliance with a rule that was adopted by the Forum in error.  At that point, it’s up to browsers like Google and others to decide and announce whether they agree (through their root program) or not.  Both groups – the Forum and individual browsers – get to decide for themselves.

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 6:22 PM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Tim Hollebeek <THollebeek at trustwave.com>; Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha at letsencrypt.org>; Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Voting has started on Ballot 214 - CAA Discovery CNAME Errata



On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Kirk Hall via Public <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
 So Ballot 214 would be in effect for about 12 days (Oct. 27 – Nov. 9).  It’s possible a new ballot could say “It is not a violation of the BRs if CAs did not comply with Ballot 214 after its effective date but before the effective date of this ballot.”  We would know that provision had passed on about Oct. 10, but wouldn’t be effective until about Nov. 9 – but if worded correctly it would be retroactive to the effective date of Ballot 214.  I think auditors would take the position that CAs who ignored Ballot 214 for the 12 day period had not violated the BRs – we can check.

As noted many, many times before, the suggestion of retroactive immunity is a decision for root stores - not the CA/Browser Forum. Compliance is binary, measured over time. You are either compliant or non-compliant. Our voting process establishes what compliance is - and redefining it changes it at a future point.

Your suggestion of "not violating the BRs" is also not consistent. It would be a violation of the BRs - but the suggestion is that it can be informed through the CA/Browser Forum's consensus process whether that violation is material to the stated principles and criteria. That is very different than what you suggest, but a subtle and important distinction worth reiterating :)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170926/3c89b9b0/attachment-0003.html>