[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: New Server Certificate Working Group

Tue Jul 3 16:50:35 UTC 2018

Adriano – see the discussion we have on the list.  The distinction seems not very useful, and I’d say that a CA with its own trusted roots could choose either CA category, Root Certificate Issuer or Certificate Issuer.  I’d also say that a CA that does not have trusted roots, but issues certs from a sub-CA owned by another CA should probably only choose Certificate Issuer.

The main reason we are ssking people to declare the basis for their membership is so we can know what they are asserting and decide if they qualify for membership on that basis.  Some members are both CAs and browsers, but they are asked to choose just one category for their membership, so it’s useful in that area.

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Adriano Santoni via Public
Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 11:41 PM
To: public at cabforum.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL]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 <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com><mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org><mailto:public at cabforum.org>; Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com><mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180703/9a2514d5/attachment-0003.html>