[cabfpub] Final Minutes for CA/Browser Forum Teleconference - September 17, 2020

Thu Oct 1 15:44:53 UTC 2020

These are the Draft Minutes of the Teleconference described in the 
subject of this message.*
***

    Attendees (in alphabetical order)

Amanda Mendieta (Apple), Andrea Holland (SecureTrust), Ben Wilson 
(Mozilla), Bruce Morton (Entrust Datacard), Chris McMillan (Visa), Clint 
Wilson (Apple), Chris Kemmerer (SSL.com), Daniela Hood (GoDaddy), Dean 
Coclin (Digicert), Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA), Doug Beattie 
(GlobalSign), Dre Aremeda (GoDaddy), Dustin Hollenback (Microsoft), 
Enrico Entschew (D-TRUST), Hazhar Ismail (MSC Trustgate), Inaba Atsushi 
(GlobalSign), India Donald (US Federal PKI Management Authority), Janet 
Hines (SecureTrust), Joanna Fox (GoDaddy), Karina Sirota (Microsoft), 
Kirk Hall (Entrust Datacard), Mayur Manchanda (Visa), Michelle Coon 
(OATI), Michol Murray (GoDaddy), Mike Reilly (Microsoft), Neil Dunbar 
(TrustCor Systems), Patrick Nohe (GlobalSign), Pedro Fuentes (OISTE 
Foundation), Peter Miskovic (Disig), Rae Ann Gonzales (GoDaddy), Rebecca 
Kelley (Apple), Rich Smith (Sectigo), Ryan Sleevi (Google), Shelley 
Brewer (Digicert), Sissel Hoel (Buypass AS), Stephen Davidson 
(Digicert), Tim Hollebeek (Digicert), Tobias Josefowitz (Opera Software 
AS), Trevoli Ponds-White (Amazon), Vijayakumar (Vijay) Manjunatha 
(eMudhra), Wayne Thayer (Mozilla), Wendy Brown (US Federal PKI 
Management Authority).

    Minutes

      1. Roll Call

The Chair took attendance.

      2. Read Antitrust Statement

The Antitrust Statement was read.

      3. Review Agenda

No changes to the agenda were noted. Dimitris took minutes for this 
meeting. Jos will take the minutes for the next call.

      4. Approval of minutes from previous teleconference

Accepted without objections.

      5. Forum Infrastructure Subcommittee update

Jos gave the update stating that the subcommittee reviewed previous 
tasks. There was also a discussion about a recent proposal for 
separating WG documents in different GitHub repositories so they are no 
longer shared. This discussion then moved on to the mailing list. Right 
now the subcommittee thinkgs it has a skeleton of how each repo should 
look like, but there were some details to clarify about the documents 
repository and whether we should freeze, rename, etc.

There was also discussion about which repositories to create as clean, 
which ones should be forked so that all history is retained.

The subcommittee considered the plan to separate repositories for WGs 
and concluded that not all WGs will immediately start using GitHub.

Dimitris added that the WebEx donation has been renewed for another year.

<https://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/2020-May/000240.html>

      6. Code Signing Working Group update

Dean gave the update.

He noted that there is a Key size change coming up in January 2021 in 
the current Code Signing Baseline Requirements Document which is 
included in an Appendix.

RSA 3072 must be used starting january 1st. There were some concerns 
that some devices did not support that key size (Yubikey was sited as 
one of the examples). There were also some issues mentioned about some 
cloud devices.

There was a proposal to move the date further out not just because of 
that but also because it was too close to the holidays. A proposal was 
to move it at the end of 2nd Quarter. A ballot will be created soon.

Bruce has been going through the combined document looking at EV vs 
non-EV, trying to identify what are the differences, do we need distinct 
rules, and in general try to harmonize the requirements.

On September 24th there will be discussion on high risk certificate 
requests. They have invited Guest Speakers. Discuss whether we need to 
treat high risk requests differently or the same way.

      7.  S/MIME Working Group update

Stephen gave the update. Current members are 25 Certificate Issuers, 3 
Consumers.

The WG is currently looking at certificate policies for S/MIME 
Certificates, RFC5280 and governmental documents that could be applicable.

Another areas of discussion:

  * the development of methods for establishing email control associated
    with the certificates.
  * CA operational practices
  * issues including subjectDN.
  * Certificate Profiles
  * Certificate validity period.

The last topic triggered a lively discussion because in the TLS world, 
the prime driver for shortening the validity period of the certificates 
was crypto agility. There was some discussion about other factors that 
come into play at S/MIME Certificates. There was discussion whether the 
renew of the certificate is related to the binding with the organization 
or re-establishing control of keys. SSL Certificates are used for a 
session. Shortening the lifetime of an S/MIME certificate brings burden 
on the User to handle keys over time. Depending where the key resides 
(cloud, token, etc) the validity is probably affected.

This is an area that the Working Group would welcome input from Members 
with strong opinions on these matters, perhaps describe different cases 
like cloud protected keys or software or on a crypto-token. Or perhaps 
it might have a different validity period depending whether the 
certificate is for signing or encryption.

This is an issue where the WG is seeking feedback from people for levels 
of SHOULD vs SHALL for S/MIME Certificates regarding validity.

Ryan: In the past when documents were being developed, we would solicit 
feedback by publishing a draft document, and then ask for whoever is 
interested to send input in "questions at xxxx". This could be used for 
questions like the validity issue soliciting broad input. That was an 
approach used even before the final draft. Has the WG discussed how to 
ask for this broad public feedback?

Stephen: It was discussed in the recent meeting. Process-wise the WG has 
discussed how to address this issue. We could either set specific 
examples and the reasoning behind it or set the parameters initially 
rather wide in version 1 and have a discussion later about which periods 
are more applicable. There are many use cases that must be understood 
for S/MIME Certificates, some of which are still evolving.

Ryan: State some of the challenges and scoping issues. Similarly the 
SCWG had scoping discussions trying to determine whether it should 
address machine-to-machine communications, payment terminals, etc. This 
is a good way to constrain the problems. It would help to understand 
some use cases that the working group is working on. Is this for 
Enterprise Authentication Scenarios? Authentication of Email Addresses 
on the wider Internet? It looks like a good opportunity to solicit 
feedback both on scope of applicability and use cases.

Ryan also mentioned that the driving factor for shortening the lifetime 
of TLS Certificates was the Policy agility which is more important than 
the crypto agility. It is important for the SMCWG to consider how these 
documents will evolve over time. Validation of OrgName might change over 
time and has deficiencies that have been identified and corrected. How 
would that propagate in a sufficient time? Getting this feedback would 
help prioritize tasks.

      8.  Elections update

Confirmation ballots end on Monday. Dimitris will start preparing the 
elections for the Vice Chair positions after that.

      9. Topics for the next virtual F2F

Dimitris asked for Members to propose new topics for the upcoming F2F.

There was a short discussion about proposed guest speakers. Dean will 
follow-up with Dimitris and Wayne on this issue.

      10. Any Other Business

No other business was discussed.

      11. Next call

The next call will take place on October 1, 2020 at 11:30am Eastern Time.

      Adjourned

      F2F Meeting Schedule:

  * 2020: October 20-22 (Virtual)
  * 2021: Feb-March San Jose, CA (Cisco), June – Poland (Asseco-Certum),
    October - Minneapolis (OATI)
  * 2022: Mar-April New Delhi / Bengaluru (e-Mudhra), June - [Open],
    October - [Open]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20201001/c7718d58/attachment-0002.html>