[cabfpub] Ballot SC 13 version 2

Wed Nov 21 10:19:55 MST 2018

Thank you.

-Tim

From: Tim Shirley <TShirley at trustwave.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 9:20 AM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; CA/B Forum Server
Certificate WG Public Discussion List <servercert-wg at cabforum.org>;
CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: RE: Ballot SC 13 version 2

Nit: "for the" is incorrectly repeated in section 3.2.2.4.14:

"See Appendix B for the for the format of the DNS TXT"

From: Servercert-wg [mailto:servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of
Tim Hollebeek via Servercert-wg
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 10:17 AM
To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List; CA/Browser
Forum Public Discussion List
Subject: [Servercert-wg] Ballot SC 13 version 2

Based on some feedback I received, I fixed some potential ambiguities
regarding use of these methods to validate subdomains.

Note that the redline section contains a rich diff between version 1 and 2
if you only want to see what changed since the last version.

-Tim

Ballot SC13: CAA Contact Property and Associated E-mail Validation Methods

Purpose of Ballot: Increasingly, contact information is not available in
WHOIS due to concerns about potential GDPR violations.  This ballot
specifies a method by which domain holders can publish their contact
information via DNS, and how CAs can use that information for validating
domain control.

The following motion has been proposed by Tim Hollebeek of DigiCert and
endorsed by Bruce Morton of Entrust and Doug Beattie of GlobalSign.

--- MOTION BEGINS ---

This ballot modifies the "Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and
Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates" as follows, based on Version
1.6.0:

Add Section 3.2.2.4.13: Email to DNS CAA Contact

Confirming the Applicant's control over the FQDN by sending a Random Value
via email and then receiving a confirming response utilizing the Random
Value. The Random Value MUST be sent to an email address identified as a CAA
contactemail property record as defined in Appendix B.

Each email MAY confirm control of multiple FQDNs, provided that the DNS
contactemail email address is the same for each Authorized Domain Name being
validated.

The Random Value SHALL be unique in each email. The email MAY be re-sent in
its entirety, including the re-use of the Random Value, provided that its
entire contents and recipient SHALL remain unchanged. The Random Value SHALL
remain valid for use in a confirming response for no more than 30 days from
its creation. The CPS MAY specify a shorter validity period for Random
Values.

Note: Once the FQDN has been validated using this method, the CA MAY also
issue Certificates for other FQDNs that end with all the labels of the
validated FQDN. This method is suitable for validating Wildcard Domain
Names.

Add Section 3.2.2.4.14: Email to DNS TXT Contact

Confirming the Applicant's control over the FQDN by sending a Random Value
via email and then receiving a confirming response utilizing the Random
Value. The Random Value MUST be sent to an email address identified as a DNS
TXT record email contact for

an Authorization Domain Name.  See Appendix B for the for the 

format of the DNS TXT record email contact.

Each email MAY confirm control of multiple FQDNs, provided that the DNS
contactemail email address is the same for each Authorized Domain Name being
validated.

The Random Value SHALL be unique in each email. The email MAY be re-sent in
its entirety, including the re-use of the Random Value, provided that its
entire contents and recipient SHALL remain unchanged. The Random Value SHALL
remain valid for use in a confirming response for no more than 30 days from
its creation. The CPS MAY specify a shorter validity period for Random
Values.

Note: Once the FQDN has been validated using this method, the CA MAY also
issue Certificates for other FQDNs that end with all the labels of the
validated FQDN. This method is suitable for validating Wildcard Domain
Names.

Add Appendix B: DNS Contact Properties

These methods allow domain owners to publish contact information in DNS for
the purpose of validating domain control.

B.1. CAA Methods

B.1.1. CAA contactemail Property

SYNTAX: contactemail <rfc6532emailaddress> 

The CAA contactemail property takes an email address as its parameter.  The
entire parameter value MUST be a valid email address as defined in RFC 6532
section 3.2, with no additional padding or structure, or it cannot be used.

The following is an example where the holder of the domain specified the
contact property using an email address.

$ORIGIN example.com
<http://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=4062&d=-qX02_AjeY5nP-38L5wqhuBsOyt7HH4BIPg
0lgiv-Q&s=5&u=http%3a%2f%2fexample%2ecom> 

.              CAA 0 contactemail "domainowner at example.com
<mailto:domainowner at example.com> "

This email address is a valid contact address for all domains

it is relevant for via the standard CAA search algorithm

specified in RFC 6844 section 4.

The contactemail property MAY be critical, if the domain owner does not want
CAs who do not understand it to issue certificates for the domain.

B.2. DNS TXT Methods

B.2.1. DNS TXT Email Contact

The DNS TXT record MUST be placed on the "_validation-contactemail"
subdomain of the domain being validated.  The entire RDATA value of this TXT
record MUST be a valid email address as defined in RFC 6532 section 3.2,
with no additional padding or structure, or it cannot be used.

--- MOTION ENDS ---

*** WARNING ***: USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.  THE REDLINE BELOW IS NOT THE
OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE CHANGES (CABF Bylaws, Section 2.4(a)):

A comparison of the changes can be found at:
https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/Ballot-SC4---CAA-CONTACT-email
?diff=unified
<https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=4062&d=-qX02_AjeY5nP-38L5wqhuBsOyt7HH4BIK
s4nF2q_w&s=5&u=https%3a%2f%2fgithub%2ecom%2fcabforum%2fdocuments%2fcompare%2
fBallot-SC4---CAA-CONTACT-email%3fdiff%3dunified%26amp%3bexpand%3d1>
&expand=1

The changes between version 2 and version 1 are here:

https://github.com/cabforum/documents/commit/b635758f4dec0bc4c09fce11bc80703
ddcfeb48e?short_path=7f6d14a#diff-7f6d14a20e7f3beb696b45e1bf8196f2
<https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=4062&d=-qX02_AjeY5nP-38L5wqhuBsOyt7HH4BIP
01l1-qqQ&s=5&u=https%3a%2f%2fgithub%2ecom%2fcabforum%2fdocuments%2fcommit%2f
b635758f4dec0bc4c09fce11bc80703ddcfeb48e%3fshort%5fpath%3d7f6d14a%23diff-7f6
d14a20e7f3beb696b45e1bf8196f2> 

The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:

Discussion (7+ days)

Start Time: 2018-11-20 10:15 Eastern

End Time: Not before 2018-11-27 10:15 Eastern

Vote for approval (7 days)

Start Time: TBD

End Time: TBD

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20181121/783ccb1b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20181121/783ccb1b/attachment-0001.p7s>