[cabfpub] New Server Certificate Working Group

Tue Jul 3 15:55:40 UTC 2018

To be clear, I don’t actually seek to scrap it.

The proposal was abandoned because of reasoning similar to yours.  No one thought it was worth the effort.

-Tim

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 10:11 AM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Dimitris Zacharopoulos <jimmy at it.auth.gr>; Adriano Santoni - Actalis S.p.A. <adriano.santoni at staff.aruba.it>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] New Server Certificate Working Group

There's a distinction between can and is. These two capture very different states, in which the "Root Certificate Issuer" encompasses what we traditionally call "Super-CAs" in the Mozilla terminology.

If the suggestion is that a Super-CA needs to start issuing to end-entities to join the Forum, that's a step back.

If the suggestion is that a Super-CA can't join the Forum, that's a step back.

Thus, if you seek to scrap it without doing harm, it's not actually scrapped - it's just no longer split out into two definitions, but one unified definition that... allows for both cases. Thus it doesn't really achieve anything.

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:14 AM Tim Hollebeek via Public <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> > wrote:

Right, the proposal was to scrap Root Certificate Issuer, since any such entity can be a Certificate Issuer if it chooses to do so, and almost all do for obvious reasons.

We actually started down that path a bit before abandoning it.

-Tim

From: Dimitris Zacharopoulos [mailto:jimmy at it.auth.gr <mailto:jimmy at it.auth.gr> ] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 9:02 AM
To: Adriano Santoni <adriano.santoni at staff.aruba.it <mailto:adriano.santoni at staff.aruba.it> >
Cc: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> >; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] New Server Certificate Working Group

On 3/7/2018 3:36 μμ, Tim Hollebeek via Public wrote:

This was discussed on the Governance Reform Working Group, and as I recall, most people agree the distinction probably isn’t useful and is a historical artifact.  But there wasn’t enough motivation to scrap it.

It is intended to support the notion of a company that operates a root and signs other CA certificates, but doesn’t issue end entity certificates itself.  Such a company is a Root Certificate Issuer but not a Certificate Issuer.

In addition to that, a company might be operating only a SubCA that they have obtained from another company that operates a RootCA. These companies are also entitled to become Members as a "Certificate Issuer".

Dimitris.

-Tim

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Adriano Santoni via Public
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 2:41 AM
To: public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> 
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] New Server Certificate Working Group

Hi Kirk,

based on these definitions, it seems to me that most CAs among CABF members fall into both categories. 

What is the purpose of distinguishing between the two, after all?

Adriano

Il 03/07/2018 01:30, Kirk Hall via Public ha scritto:

I would look again at the definitions on the two different ways to participate as a CA.  

My guess is that CAs who have and use their own trusted roots will choose (2) Root Certificate Issuer, while CAs who do not have their own trusted roots will choose (1) Certificate Issuer, but I’m not sure on that.  The only reason why we are asking Members to declare their status is just so everyone can know and can confirm that the Member meets the membership qualifications.  

(1) Certificate Issuer: The member organization operates a certification authority that has a current and successful WebTrust for CAs audit, or ETSI TS 102042, ETSI 101456, or ETSI EN 319 411-1 audit report prepared by a properly-qualified auditor, and that actively issues certificates to Web servers that are openly accessible from the Internet, such certificates being treated as valid when using a browser created by a Certificate Consumer Member. Applicants that are not actively issuing certificates but otherwise meet membership criteria may be granted Associate Member status under Bylaw Sec. 3.1 for a period of time to be designated by the Forum.

(2) Root Certificate Issuer: The member organization operates a certification authority that has a current and successful WebTrust for CAs, or ETSI TS 102042, ETSI TS 101456, ETSI EN 319 411-1 audit report prepared by a properly-qualified auditor, and that actively issues certificates to subordinate CAs that, in turn, actively issue certificates to Web servers that are openly accessible from the Internet, such certificates being treated as valid when using a browser created by a Certificate Consumer Member. Applicants that are not actively issuing certificates but otherwise meet membership criteria may be granted Associate Member status under Bylaw Sec. 3.1 for a period of time to be designated by the Forum.

From: Peter Miškovič [mailto:Peter.Miskovic at disig.sk] 
Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 2:34 AM
To: Kirk Hall  <mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com> <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List  <mailto:public at cabforum.org> <public at cabforum.org>; Ben Wilson  <mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com> <ben.wilson at digicert.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: New Server Certificate Working Group

Hi Kirk,

could you explain to me difference between (1) and (2)? We are CA which issue subordinate CAs for our own purpose and from them actively issues certificates to Web servers. Am I right if I suppose that we are “Root Certificate Issuer” and not only “Certificate Issuer”.

Thanks.

Regards

Peter

From: Public <public-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> > On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via Public
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 12:26 AM
To: Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com <mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com> >; CABFPub <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] New Server Certificate Working Group

Ben, on the wiki page you created, can you add a column between the column “Date of Declaration” and the column “Date of Withdrawal” and label it “Type”.  Then maybe put on the page at the top a guide to the three types of Members and the one type of Associate member, something like this:

Type

1 = Certificate Issuer

2 = Root Certificate Issuer

3 = Certificate Consumer

4 = Associate Member

We probably should also post these definitions on the wiki page from the Server Certificate Working Group Charter to remind people what the terms mean.

(1) Certificate Issuer: The member organization operates a certification authority that has a current and successful WebTrust for CAs audit, or ETSI TS 102042, ETSI 101456, or ETSI EN 319 411-1 audit report prepared by a properly-qualified auditor, and that actively issues certificates to Web servers that are openly accessible from the Internet, such certificates being treated as valid when using a browser created by a Certificate Consumer Member. Applicants that are not actively issuing certificates but otherwise meet membership criteria may be granted Associate Member status under Bylaw Sec. 3.1 for a period of time to be designated by the Forum.

(2) Root Certificate Issuer: The member organization operates a certification authority that has a current and successful WebTrust for CAs, or ETSI TS 102042, ETSI TS 101456, ETSI EN 319 411-1 audit report prepared by a properly-qualified auditor, and that actively issues certificates to subordinate CAs that, in turn, actively issue certificates to Web servers that are openly accessible from the Internet, such certificates being treated as valid when using a browser created by a Certificate Consumer Member. Applicants that are not actively issuing certificates but otherwise meet membership criteria may be granted Associate Member status under Bylaw Sec. 3.1 for a period of time to be designated by the Forum.

(3) A Certificate Consumer can participate in this Working Group if it produces a software product intended for use by the general public for browsing the Web securely.

From: Ben Wilson [mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 10:24 AM
To: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >
Cc: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com <mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL]New Server Certificate Working Group

Hi All,

As Kirk mentioned during the teleconference call yesterday, we are in the process of spinning up the Server Certificate Working Group and will hold our first meeting on July 12.  Kirk and I will be sending out a more formal announcement of that meeting and solicitation for participation. 

However, given that the new Bylaws come into effect early next week, I felt it was important that we start the transition before then. I propose that the Forum’s mechanism for formally declaring participation in the Server Certificate Working Group be that existing members and interested parties (who have signed the Agreement for IPR Policy v. 1.3) send an email to Kirk and me, respectively as Chair and Vice-Chair of the WG, and formally declare their participation in the WG. (I had contemplated that everyone might send their email to the public list, but I felt that all of those emails might clutter your inboxes.) 

As a follow up task to this declaration, I’d ask that CABF members list the name of their organization here https://cabforum.org/wiki/Server%20Certificate%20Working%20Group.  If you are an interested party, we will add your name as a participant when we receive your email.

Also, everyone is welcome to subscribe to the WG’s mailing list here - https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg.  

Thanks,

Ben

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180703/53e0cf1e/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180703/53e0cf1e/attachment-0003.p7s>