[cabfpub] Ballot 219: Clarify handling of CAA Record Sets with no "issue"/"issuewild" property tag

Tim Hollebeek tim.hollebeek at digicert.com
Mon Mar 12 15:28:30 UTC 2018

Well, the clock can be extended by posting a new version (with version number).  And there is no requirement that the new version have any differences.  So you can keep a ballot alive indefinitely if the proposer is paying attention.  The 21 days is just to kill abandoned ballots.


IETF is March 17-23rd.  If Ryan and I can’t get IETF to approve some version of the errata in a timely manner, I suggest we go forward without them.  It’s been long enough.  I’ll let everyone know how the discussion in London goes.


Also there appears to be some bad math on the end time of the discussion period in the original version of the ballot.  That alone might be a good reason for posting a new version 😊




From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Public
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 3:26 AM
To: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 219: Clarify handling of CAA Record Sets with no "issue"/"issuewild" property tag


On 7/3/2018 9:02 μμ, Corey Bonnell via Public wrote:


Several weeks ago, after receiving feedback from several Forum members, I submitted an IETF erratum (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=5244) for this clarification so that we may potentially be able to directly include the erratum text in the Baseline Requirements as was done for erratum 5065. However, there has been no response from the IETF in regard to getting this erratum approved, so we would like to proceed with Ballot 219 to clarify this in the Baseline Requirements in the short term. We will continue to pursue getting the RFC language clarified, but that appears that it will take quite some time.


The wording of the ballot below is the same as the version sent in late January with the exception of a slight change to “future-proof” the language based on a suggestion by Gerv and the BR version has been bumped up to the latest version.


We would like to begin the discussion period for this ballot. We would highly appreciate any feedback and comments that anyone has before bringing this ballot to a vote.


I’d be happy to create a redline, but I’m unsure of our current preferred process for doing so. If Github (https://github.com/cabforum/documents) is the current preferred method, I’d like to point out that the “master” branch is currently out of date (it’s currently 1.5.4, whereas the current adopted version is 1.5.6).


Ballot 219: Clarify handling of CAA Record Sets with no "issue"/"issuewild" property tag


Purpose of this ballot:


RFC 6844 contains an ambiguity in regard to the correct processing of a non-empty CAA Resource Record Set that does not contain any issue property tag (and also does not contain any issuewild property tag in the case of a Wildcard Domain Name). It is ambiguous if a CA must not issue when such a CAA Resource Record Set is encountered, or if such a Resource Record Set is implicit permission to issue.


Given that the intent of the RFC is clear (such a CAA Resource Record Set is implicit permission to issue), we are proposing the following change to allow for CAA processing consistent with the intent of the RFC.


The following motion has been proposed by Corey Bonnell of Trustwave and endorsed by Tim Hollebeek of Digicert and Mads Egil Henriksveen of Buypass.



This ballot modifies the “Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates” as follows, based upon Version 1.5.6:


In section, add this sentence:

CAs MAY treat a non-empty CAA Resource Record Set that does not contain any issue property tags (and also does not contain any issuewild property tags when performing CAA processing for a Wildcard Domain Name) as permission to issue, provided that no records in the CAA Resource Record Set otherwise prohibit issuance.


to the end of this paragraph:

When processing CAA records, CAs MUST process the issue, issuewild, and iodef property tags as specified in RFC 6844, although they are not required to act on the contents of the iodef property tag. Additional property tags MAY be supported, but MUST NOT conflict with or supersede the mandatory property tags set out in this document. CAs MUST respect the critical flag and not issue a certificate if they encounter an unrecognized property with this flag set.




The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:

Discussion (7+ days) 

  Start Time: 2018-03-07 19:00:00 UTC  

  End Time: Not Before 2017-03-10 19:00:00 UTC


Vote for approval (7 days) 

  Start Time: TBD

  End Time: TBD



Corey Bonnell

Senior Software Engineer

t: +1 412.395.2233



Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org <mailto:Public at cabforum.org> 

I would like to note that according to section 2.3 (c) of the Bylaws, the proposers of this ballot have 21 calendar days (starting on March 7th 2018) to start the voting period, otherwise the ballot automatically fails. If my calculations are correct, the final day to start the voting is March 28th.

Thank you,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180312/cd26b0e7/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/20180312/cd26b0e7/attachment-0003.p7s>

More information about the Public mailing list