[cabfpub] Ballot 223 - Update BR Section 8.4 for CA audit criteria: Request to postpone it

Mon Apr 23 16:16:42 UTC 2018

Yes, we removed it as redundant because the "national scheme" seems to 
apply to auditor qualifications (or accreditation), that is already 
described in section 8.2 as we mentioned on April 15th 
(https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2018-April/013237.html).

Arno, what you describe as "define more precise requirements on 
standards for conducting the audits", mainly affects section 8.2 and not 
8.4 that this ballot tries to update. My understanding is that the 
current ballot language clarifies and aligns both standard schemes 
(WebTrust and ETSI) and is rather uncontroversial.

As Tim said, if new information is brought forward, we don't need to 
withdraw the ballot but delay the voting start date so please provide 
more feedback if there are is any ambiguity introduced, compared to the 
previous language.

Thank you,
Dimitris.

On 23/4/2018 7:01 μμ, Moudrick M. Dadashov via Public wrote:
> Tim, the latest ballot doesn't have "national scheme", its gone...
>
> Thanks,
> M.D.
>
> On 4/23/2018 5:53 PM, Tim Hollebeek via Public wrote:
>>
>> There’s no need to postpone the discussion phase, as the discussion 
>> phase can last for as long as is necessary to get the ballot to where 
>> we want it to be.  That’s why it’s listed as 7+ days.  The end time 
>> should be listed as “not before 30 April 2018” instead of “30 April 
>> 2018”, in line with what we did for other recent ballots.
>>
>> Also, it is worth mentioning that this ballot came out of an 
>> oversight by the Governance Change Working Group, where we 
>> accidentally didn’t include Dimitris’ changes in the Governance 
>> Reform ballot, despite the fact that we said we were going to.  It 
>> would be a shame to hold up these improvements for a long time by 
>> tying them to other larger efforts.  I could be wrong, but “define 
>> more precise requirements on standards for conducting the audits” by 
>> referencing new standards sounds like something that could take a 
>> long while to get agreement on.
>>
>> Fixing the definition of “national scheme” sounds much more doable, 
>> and suggesting a concrete proposal of how it could be done would help.
>>
>> -Tim
>>
>> *From:*Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] *On Behalf Of 
>> *Arno Fiedler via Public
>> *Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2018 10:27 AM
>> *To:* public at cabforum.org
>> *Cc:* management-request at cabforum.org; ESI_TSP: (ESI Trust Service 
>> Providers) <ESI_TSP at LIST.ETSI.ORG>
>> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 223 - Update BR Section 8.4 for CA 
>> audit criteria: Request to postpone it
>>
>> Dear CA/B-Forum Members,
>>
>> sorry for jumping in late, Dimitris and Moudrick, many thanks for the 
>> proposed ballot.
>> After checking different Browser Requirements I strongly suggest to 
>> postpone the discussion phase ballot 223 on "Updating BR Section 8.4".
>>
>> We should have further improvements on the definitions,
>> esp. of  "national scheme" ( e. g. within EA or IAF Framework)  and
>> define more precise requirements on standards for conducting the 
>> audits, (e. g. ISO/IEC 17065 supplemented by ETSI EN 319 403)
>> so I suggest to postpone the start of the discussion phase on May, 
>> the 7th.
>>
>> Would realy like to cover the audit requirements from all browsers by 
>> the Ballot, so more time is needed.
>>
>> Thanks in advance and best regards
>>
>> Arno Fiedler
>>
>> Am 23.04.2018 um 07:18 schrieb Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Public:
>>
>>     The following motion has been proposed by Dimitris Zacharopoulos
>>     of HARICA and endorsed by Moudrick M. Dadashov of SSC and Tim
>>     Hollebeek from Digicert.
>>
>>     *Background*:
>>
>>     Section 8.4 of the Baseline Requirements describes the audit
>>     criteria for CAs that issue Publicly-Trusted SSL/TLS
>>     Certificates. This ballot attempts to achieve two things:
>>
>>      1. Remove the old ETSI TS documents
>>      2. Align the WebTrust and ETSI requirements
>>
>>     "WebTrust for Certification Authorities" is equivalent to "ETSI
>>     EN 319 401" and "WebTrust Principles and Criteria for
>>     Certification Authorities – SSL Baseline with Network Security"
>>     is equivalent to "ETSI EN 319 411-1".
>>
>>     *-- MOTION BEGINS --*
>>
>>     Replace the first two numbered items in section 8.4 from:
>>
>>      1. WebTrust for Certification Authorities v2.0;
>>      2. A national scheme that audits conformance to ETSI TS 102 042
>>         / ETSI EN 319 411-1; or
>>
>>     to:
>>
>>      1. "WebTrust for CAs v2.0 or newer" AND "WebTrust for CAs SSL
>>         Baseline with Network Security v2.2 or newer"; or
>>      2. "ETSI EN 319 401 v2.1.1 or newer" AND "ETSI EN 319 411-1
>>         v1.1.1"; or
>>
>>     *-- MOTION ENDS --*
>>
>>     The procedure for this ballot is as follows (exact start and end
>>     times may be adjusted to comply with applicable Bylaws and IPR
>>     Agreement):
>>
>>     *BALLOT 223 Status: Update BR Section 8.4 for CA audit criteria*
>>
>>     	
>>
>>     *Start time (22:00 UTC)*
>>
>>     	
>>
>>     *End time (22:00 UTC)*
>>
>>     Discussion (7+ days)
>>
>>     	
>>
>>     23 April 2018
>>
>>     	
>>
>>     30 April 2018
>>
>>     Vote for approval (7 days)
>>
>>     	
>>
>>     TBD
>>
>>     	
>>
>>     TBD according to voting start time
>>
>>     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.
>>     Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread on
>>     the Public Mail List.
>>
>>     	
>>
>>     Upon filing of Review Notice by Chair
>>
>>     	
>>
>>     30 days after filing of Review Notice by Chair
>>
>>     From the Bylaws section 2.4(a): "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 Section
>>     2.4(j) below".
>>
>>     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://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%2Fmembers%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd1ece9170b4c412118c308d5a8d9b97b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636600575423532305&sdata=%2BtkvNa%2FRWMg%2BMi3aHyR4HnvwLA%2FDp5yqBCe7twDbuUs%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>     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 the Bylaws
>>     section 2.3(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 <mailto:Public at cabforum.org>
>>
>>     https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpublic&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd1ece9170b4c412118c308d5a8d9b97b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636600575423532305&sdata=y2KaTimAOv%2FA%2FjMTaDpP1C9MPVG%2FPtTTxL9RPUE78pc%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> -- 
>> Arno Fiedler
>> Nimbus Technologieberatung GmbH
>> Reichensteiner Weg 17
>> 14195 Berlin
>> Mobil:      0049-(0)172-3053272
>> Fax:        0049-(0)30-89745-777
>> E-Mail:arno.fiedler at nimbus-berlin.com <mailto:arno.fiedler at nimbus-berlin.com>
>> Web:www.nimbus-berlin.com 
>> <https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/ZkMg4lf2QLN5xtF6BtrL1-wzNDD7Dq-y6pBn5TpZJYA=?d=UHo2Qz9CW7I04zEs37QU2ZPO7JgcLOhepmWY8i9XMIXkHN7Uxxcl7LOnLuy6DMHWLlZ4M3W7YH53fij_k6wPI-URHX4RR4ewze4_dNA77EqoEYf1LT7tyxjTEghcECLGQOni-Dn4UeLOOXZ9xqEh-Ta_n9ti9HoDEbK0BrHvQeqY9NvWby5NOiX7SuDaQoqB57iND11htveXS7AylirpKMHhOCPaAF9n7QNqE6GAk1djNSvPh6O7nNDyI5tSzGSgilrGyQLxWbKY9U2Ddmxt4iwp496mM6VLEaduEQUUKiuRVLjkLg6hishWSvKzc2FruqJ1X3Tgu3u_uwQifCmNyZz0Eaga63npSeBSGO6YzvQZXpDSQbrm_HpRIX9uDUsZArOluVWLyioGSu5sEeKw4d6PB0JkwUxnefRgnDUBUdKrF3eQt_RMwGmEnTQZ83dI6IB-2s7SgCvouwbIov8HwZTlDhrShmU%3D&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nimbus-berlin.com>
>> Geschäftsführer:  Arno Fiedler
>> USt-IdNr. :       DE 203 269 920
>> D-U-N-S® Nr.      50-730-8117
>> HandelsregisterNr:HRB 109409 B
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Public mailing list
>> Public at cabforum.org
>> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180423/b97c86ac/attachment-0003.html>