[Servercert-wg] Final Minutes for Server Certificate Working Group Teleconference - May 14, 2020

Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) dzacharo at harica.gr
Mon Jun 1 11:36:58 MST 2020

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

    Attendees (in alphabetical order)

Adam Clark (Visa), Arno Fiedler (D-TRUST), Ben Wilson (Mozilla), Bruce 
Morton (Entrust Datacard), Clint Wilson (Apple), Corey Bonnell 
(SecureTrust), Chris Kemmerer (SSL.com), Daniela Hood (GoDaddy), Dean 
Coclin (Digicert), Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA), Doug Beattie 
(GlobalSign), Dustin Hollenback (Microsoft), Enrico Entschew (D-TRUST), 
Inaba Atsushi (GlobalSign), Janet Hines (SecureTrust), Jos Purvis (Cisco 
Systems), Li-Chun Chen (Chunghwa Telecom), Mads Henriksveen (Buypass 
AS), Michael Guenther (SwissSign), Mike Reilly (Microsoft), Neil Dunbar 
(TrustCor Systems), Niko Carpenter (SecureTrust), Patrick Nohe 
(GlobalSign), Pedro Fuentes (OISTE Foundation), Peter Miskovic (Disig), 
Rich Smith (Sectigo), Robin Alden (Sectigo), Ryan Sleevi (Google), 
Shelley Brewer (Digicert), Stephen Davidson (Quo Vadis), Taconis Lewis 
(US Federal PKI Management Authority), Thanos Vrachnos (SSL.com), Tim 
Hollebeek (Digicert), Tobias Josefowitz (Opera Software AS), Trevoli 
Ponds-White (Amazon), Wayne Thayer (Mozilla), Wendy Brown (US Federal 
PKI Management Authority).


      1. Roll Call

The Chair took attendance.

      2. Read Antitrust Statement

The Antitrust Statement was read.

      3. Review Agenda, assign minute taker for next meeting

Accepted without changes. Enrico volunteered to take minutes on the next 

      4. Approval of minutes from previous teleconference

Accepted without objections.

      5. Validation Subcommittee Update

Tim reports that the Subcommittee had a discussion about http responses 
and which ones should be acceptable or not. Currently some of the 3xx 
responses allow parsing the content of the body and it might be useful 
to tighten up these rules with a specific list.

More discussion on how to present the Certificate Profiles. The best 
approach they agreed to is the order of appearance in the BRs.

The draft minutes of that particular Subcommittee meeting are available 
at the following thread:

  * https://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2020-May/001477.html
    (please note that this is a side-effect of the transition to the new

      6. NetSec Subcommittee Update

Neil reported that ballot SC28 related to logging and retention policy 
is in a final draft state. There was also discussion about action "j" 
related to deactivation of user accounts. The SC is trying to move away 
from the term "accounts" and introduce the term "access".

The pain points subgroup discussed about item "2k" which is related to 
lockout because they identified too many exceptions around that requirement.

The threat modeling subgroup is drafting a checklist for online CAs. 
They are working on some text for shared credentials because existing 
controls are not so precise.

The subcommittee is also making progress on the remote secure zone 
terminology and security controls for offline Roots that will be separated.

The draft minutes of that particular Subcommittee meeting are available 
at the following thread:

  * https://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/netsec/2020-May/000337.html
    (please note that this is a side-effect of the transition to the new

      7. Ballot Status

        _Ballots in Discussion Period_

_*Ballots in Voting Period*_

_*Ballots in Review Period*_
//SC29: //System Configuration Management/ (Neil)/.*Review period**ends 
15:00 UTC 7 June 2020*.//

        _Draft Ballots under Consideration_

/Aligning the BRs with existing Browser Requirements /(Ryan)

Microsoft will proceed with a number of changes and update requirements 
to be more permissive. Some of the changes were rolled back because they 
are no longer part of MS program.

Mozilla is gathering feedback from CA members.

Ryan is looking for endorsers. Some requirements are gated on Root 
programs. Example P521, what is the result if this is not allowed in the 
BRs? Some Root Programs may have concerns about adding new requirements 
to their programs.

CAs need to take a close look at the ballot. Corey commented on name forms.
Spring 2020 cleanup (Ryan)/
One more change was added, the use of CABF OIDs in subCA certificates. 
May need to clarify this language. Updated the descriptions on GitHub 
and issues.

Ryan noted that the ballot adds what seems to be two normative changes 
which claims they are a natural consequence of existing requirements.

The first is about CA's that should revoke a Certificate if CP/CPS are 
violated, but may have some issues with Subscriber Agreements, for 
example if it's not explicitly stated in the Subscriber Agreement.

The second is related to which clarifies that if you can derive 
a private key from a public key, it is a compromized key and this can to 
be added in for more clarity.

Tim H. Not the spirit of a cleanup. Ryan responded that this should be a 
cleanup and clarifications for obviously incorrect language and issues 
that are already identified.

/Disclosures of data sources (Ryan)/
Updated the preamble with feedback from Doug explaining motivation, 
goals and roadmap. The ballot text was updated and will be discussed on 
the next validation call. The requirement moved to October instead of 
September. Also the requirement of keeping the disclosure accessible 
24x7 raised concerns about 24x7 and that perhaps the use of a document 
sharing platform would be prohibited. It's been removed and replaced 
with "readily accessible and online".

Originally the disclosure requirement was added in section 8.2.2 of the 
EV Guidelines but that section was more about disclosing specific CP/CPS 
OIDs. So, the proposal is to add a new section, 11.1.3 because 11.1 is 
about verification and this can be coupled nicely.

Another significant change is that CAs don't need to disclose a given 
data source if it has not been used to validate a certificate.

If a CA evaluates and decides not to use, should this be disclosed?

That is not the intent. It should be disclosed prior to its use and 
issuance of a Certificate. Compliance teams can evaluate who they want 
but don't need to disclose if they do not intend to use that source to 
issue a Certificate. Most feedback has been incorporated. Looking for 
endorsers and seeing latest changes.

/Updating BR Section
Chris: This is related mostly on Debian weak keys and there are some 
possible overlaps with the cleanup/clarifications ballot. His team will 
review the best path forward and possible work through the GitHub comments.

      8. Any Other Business

Ben mentioned about OCSP service availability uptime. He asked Members 
to take a look, respond on the list or contact him, exploring if we 
should have more specific language around that. Dimitris and Trev 
recommend this being discussed in the NetSec subcommittee.

Agenda topics for the upcoming F2F
Mostly updates from Browser Members, ETSI, ACAB-c and subcommittees. If 
anyone wants to discuss a new topic, please come forward.

      9. Next call

May 28, 2020 at 11:00 am Eastern Time.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20200601/acdd3501/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Servercert-wg mailing list