[cabfpub] Ballot Forum-11: Creation of S/MIME Certificates Working Group

Thu Feb 6 18:31:54 UTC 2020

Thanks Dimitris.

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 11:09 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Public <
public at cabforum.org> wrote:

> Tim, Wayne, Adriano,
>
> Apple made a contribution and although HARICA disagrees with most of the
> recommended changes I believe there should be some discussion around that.
>

Agree. It's not in anyone's interests, nor do I believe that the intent was
to ignore input unrelated to the identity issue. We should discuss it now
to allow members to decide for themselves if the suggestions are important
enough to warrant voting against this ballot, or if the ballot is good
enough to ratify as-is.

Unfortunately, although I had started working on a response, I didn't have
> time to complete it on time. I was hoping to see some comments/responses
> from the proposer and endorsers before the voting period began.
>
> For what it's worth, here is a list of my comments (attached). My biggest
> concern is the Certificate Consumer members that qualify based on "mail
> transfer agent". I would certainly like some more information about that
> before HARICA votes. Other than that, the charter looks good to me.
>
>
The section in question is:

(2) A Certificate Consumer eligible for voting membership in the SMCWG must
produce a develop and maintain a mail user agent (web-based or application
based), mail transfer agent, or email service provider that processes
S/MIME certificates issued by third-party Certificate Issuers who meet
criteria set by such Certificate Consumer.

The inclusion of "mail transfer agents" as eligible participants doesn't
appear harmful to me, but I also agree with Clint's comment that "The role
of a mail transfer agent in consuming S/MIME certificates is unclear."

Tim or Ben: this was part of the draft Ben proposed over a year ago. Do you
have any information on why this was included?

> Best regards,
> Dimitris.
>
>
>
> On 2020-02-06 12:45 π.μ., Wayne Thayer via Public wrote:
>
> Based on my recollection of the Guangzhou discussion, and supported by the
> minutes, the "path forward agreed to in Guangzhou" was that we would take
> this charter to a ballot without further attempts to resolve the issue of
> including identity in the charter's scope. There does not appear to be a
> path to consensus on this issue, despite the considerable amount of time
> spent discussing it. I'm unhappy with this approach, but as one of the
> endorsers, I don't see an alternative other than "take it to a vote" that
> gets this much-needed WG formed any time soon.
>
> - Wayne
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:22 PM Ryan Sleevi via Public <public at cabforum.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> Could you point to where that's reflected in the minutes? Our
>> understanding here at Google is that Apple's proposed changes, which we
>> support and would be unable to participate without incorporating, is that
>> it accurately and correctly reflects the discussions in London [1],
>> reiterated in Cupertino [2], and agreed upon in Thessaloniki [3]. It
>> appears that, following that, the proposers of that ballot ignored that
>> consensus and conclusion, and yet the discussion of Guangzhou [4] does not
>> indicate there was consensus to do so.
>>
>> I'm hoping we've just overlooked something in the minutes, but Apple's
>> proposed changes seem imminently reasonable, and a worthwhile path to
>> drafting requirements that consuming software, such as mail clients (both
>> native and Web), can use and consume as part of their root programs, as an
>> alternative to their root-program-specific requirements.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://cabforum.org/2018/06/06/minutes-for-ca-browser-forum-f2f-meeting-44-london-6-7-june-2018/#New-SMIME-Working-Group-Charter
>> [2]
>> https://cabforum.org/2019/05/03/minutes-for-ca-browser-forum-f2f-meeting-46-cupertino-12-14-march-2019/#Creation-of-additional-Working-Groups---Secure-Mail
>> "Dean – We have a blank slate here and it seems the reluctance was to
>> make it a narrow scope and then focus on either one aspect of SMIME. First
>> task might be how to validate an email, and then focus on identity
>> validation. Some comments were to make the chart narrow to focus on one
>> task while others say to include all proposed tasks to not have to
>> recharter which has caused issues in the past."
>> [3]
>> https://cabforum.org/2019/08/16/minutes-for-ca-browser-forum-f2f-meeting-47-thessaloniki-12-13-june-2019/#Creation-of-Additional-Groups---Secure-Mail
>> "Eventually, all parties in the conversation came to the conclusion that
>> it would behoove the Forum to scope the working group charter to domain
>> validation, first, before adding other functionality once that portion was
>> locked-down."
>> [4]
>> https://cabforum.org/2019/12/12/minutes-for-ca-browser-forum-f2f-meeting-48-guangzhou-5-7-november-2019/#Creation-of-Additional-Groups---Secure-Mail
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Public mailing list
>> Public at cabforum.org
>> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing listPublic at cabforum.orghttps://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/20200206/0abe6066/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft SMIME Charter 2020-01-31-ctw-HARICA.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 34347 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20200206/0abe6066/attachment-0003.docx>