[Servercert-wg] Proposal to Incorporate Mozilla's CRL Revocation Reason Code Requirements into the BRs

Tue Nov 15 16:11:13 UTC 2022

That could simplify it, but Mozilla's CRL Reason Code rules would still
supersede that section.

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 2:22 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via
Servercert-wg <servercert-wg at cabforum.org> wrote:

> On 15/11/2022 1:02 π.μ., Ben Wilson via Servercert-wg wrote:
>
> Thanks.
>
> Any additional thoughts, recommendations, etc.?
>
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> I assume that the use cases described within the parenthesis under 4.9.1.1
> are "examples" which means that the "i.e." should be replaced with "e.g.".
>
> I am not very much in favor of the breakown of subsections for each
> revocation reasonCode which repeats the language "SHOULD revoke within 24
> hours and SHALL revoke within 5 days" in various cases, and gets especially
> confusing when the Subscriber requests in writing, which can apply to
> several reasonCodes.
>
> The previous attempt keeping the existing structure that CAs/Auditors are
> already familiar with, seems like a better approach. That's because CAs
> already have controls in place to handle "specific revocation use cases" as
> they are listed in the current sections 4.9.1.1 and 4.9.1.2. All we need to
> do now is map those known cases to a specific RFC5280 reasonCode.
>
> If additional revocation use cases have been documented in MRSP, we can
> add those in 4.9.1.1/2 as needed.
>
> What do others think? Should we try to minimize the changes to 4.9.1.1 and
> 4.9.1.2 or do a complete restructuring?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Dimitris.
>
>
>
> Ben
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 11:33 PM Roman Fischer via Servercert-wg <
> servercert-wg at cabforum.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear Ben,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your effort to make it better understandable. Even for me as a
>> non-native speaker it’s now much clearer when to use which reasonCode (but
>> it’s still very complex!).
>>
>>
>>
>> Could the section
>>
>>
>>
>> ** The privilegeWithdrawn reasonCode does not need to be made available
>> to the Subscriber as a revocation reason option, because the use of this
>> reasonCode is determined by the CA and not the Subscriber.
>>
>>
>>
>> be reformulated to use one of the RFC 2119 terms? Maybe your intention
>> was “SHALL NOT be made available”?
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Roman Fischer, SwissSign
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Servercert-wg <servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of
>> *Ben Wilson via Servercert-wg
>> *Sent:* Freitag, 11. November 2022 00:53
>> *To:* CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <
>> servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Servercert-wg] Proposal to Incorporate Mozilla's CRL
>> Revocation Reason Code Requirements into the BRs
>>
>>
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Here is another iteration of a proposal to incorporate Mozilla's CRL
>> reason code requirements into the Baseline Requirements.
>>
>> I am open to your suggestions and recommendations on how to make this
>> better.
>>
>> I'll put another draft in GitHub again after I receive feedback.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 10:16 PM Ben Wilson via Servercert-wg <
>> servercert-wg at cabforum.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Corey,
>>
>>
>>
>> See responses below.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 11:38 AM Corey Bonnell <
>> Corey.Bonnell at digicert.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>> It appears the ballot text has potential divergences from the published
>> MRSP:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. This ballot prohibits other CRLReasons from appearing in CRLs. This is
>> meaningfully different from MRSP, where the new requirements are applicable
>> solely to revocations that occur on or after the effective date.
>>
>>
>>
>>  I think this can be fixed with some language changes.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. There is no requirement to document reason codes in the Subscriber
>> Agreement, whereas there is in MRSP. Is this change intentional?
>>
>>
>>
>> Not exactly an intentional elimination of the requirement, but I can make
>> the ballot consistent with the MRSP with some language changes as well. My
>> idea was to suggest that CAs could incorporate the necessary information
>> "by reference" so that the CRL reason code explanations wouldn't have to
>> appear fully in Subscriber Agreements or Terms of Use.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. Regarding 24-hour revocation reason #5: it appears that
>> privilegeWithdrawn is now allowed. According to MRSP, only superseded is
>> appropriate for this case.
>>
>>
>>
>> For consistency, I'll change this to superseded only.
>>
>>
>>
>> 4. Regarding 5-day revocation reason #9: this is not a scenario listed in
>> MRSP. In other words, this revocation scenario must be denoted as
>> “unspecified” as the CRLReason under MRSP. Therefore, it is not possible to
>> satisfy both the proposed BR text and MRSP.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's probably the approach to take - thanks.  Another possibility is to
>> move this revocation reason down to 4.9.1.2 - CAs should revoke the
>> intermediate CA certificate(s) rather than all end entity certificates.
>>
>>
>>
>> 5.  Regarding 5-day revocation reason #10: this appears to be like
>> scenario #7, but it is different in that revocation may be required even if
>> there’s no violation of the CP/CPS. I don’t think this scenario is
>> enumerated in MRSP, so it is not possible to specify a reason code that
>> satisfies both MRSP and this ballot for this scenario.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kathleen and I think that this reason is in the MRSP under the section
>> for the superseded CRLReason -  "the CA operator has revoked the
>> certificate for compliance reasons such as the certificate does not comply
>> with this policy, the CA/Browser Forum's Baseline Requirements, or the CA
>> operator’s CP or CPS".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> More generally, the Defined Term “Certificate” should be used throughout
>> the ballot for consistency.
>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed.  Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Corey
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Servercert-wg <servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of
>> *Ben Wilson via Servercert-wg
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 13, 2022 11:37 PM
>> *To:* Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com>; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG
>> Public Discussion List <servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Servercert-wg] Proposal to Incorporate Mozilla's CRL
>> Revocation Reason Code Requirements into the BRs
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is the most current comparison:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/bbca71465ed8a8a76383086039f52c750009286a..1699612e5157423f607d67cc8ab9dc3a1d52b318
>> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabforum%2Fservercert%2Fcompare%2Fbbca71465ed8a8a76383086039f52c750009286a..1699612e5157423f607d67cc8ab9dc3a1d52b318&data=05%7C01%7Croman.fischer%40swisssign.com%7Ce95c13967f6d4cffa0db08dac376a9d2%7C21322582607f404c82d950ddb1eca5c9%7C1%7C0%7C638037211688809839%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6U2qShXXY%2FWlUn2vWCqq0YB8yQAQxEiQXejzc6pCawE%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ben
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 11:00 AM Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com> wrote:
>>
>> Here is another edit that tries to make minimal changes to BR section
>> 4.9.1.1.
>>
>>
>> <http://goog_144053405>
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/BenWilson-Mozilla/servercert/commit/94a07d08855cf489a2bdddff7d8a9490969d5d06
>> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FBenWilson-Mozilla%2Fservercert%2Fcommit%2F94a07d08855cf489a2bdddff7d8a9490969d5d06&data=05%7C01%7Croman.fischer%40swisssign.com%7Ce95c13967f6d4cffa0db08dac376a9d2%7C21322582607f404c82d950ddb1eca5c9%7C1%7C0%7C638037211688809839%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=h0d4CsixQeyG7GMzM2nqO3ScDRRM1EomVg%2BuwI3lBIc%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ben
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 9:51 AM Ben Wilson via Servercert-wg <
>> servercert-wg at cabforum.org> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Dimitris. I'll work on that approach and get something back to
>> you soon.
>>
>> Ben
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 2:56 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
>> dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>> After a quick reading, I noticed that the subsections are not symmetrical
>> and a bit inconsistent. For example, some of them contain the statement
>> "the CA SHOULD revoke a certificate within 24 hours and MUST revoke a
>> Certificate within 5 days", some do not.
>>
>> Other examples:
>>
>>    - 4.9.1.1.1, is labeled "Subscriber-Requested Revocation", however
>>    there are other subsections that are also "Subscriber-Requested". This
>>    separation seems confusing.
>>    - 4.9.1.1.4 is about unreliable validation but most of the remaining
>>    subsections are titled after the RFC 5280 revocation reasons.
>>
>> Finally, it's not very clear when the "unspecified (0)" reason must be
>> used because of section 4.9.1.1.8 (Other Circumstances) which doesn't point
>> to a revocation reason.
>>
>> >From my perspective, I'm not sure if breaking down each subsection is
>> more helpful for reading the revocation requirements than the current
>> listing. I understand there is a desire to copy the MRSP language as much
>> as possible but perhaps we need to consider a less "intrusive" set of
>> changes to a section that CAs already have a difficult time reading and
>> implementing.
>>
>> IMO we either need to describe the revocation scenario and point to the
>> RFC 5280 revocation reason (closer to what the BRs have today), or start
>> with the RFC 5280 revocation reasons and enumerate the revocation scenarios
>> (closer to what MRSP has today). I find it confusing to mix the two
>> approaches.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dimitris.
>>
>> On 12/9/2022 6:32 π.μ., Ben Wilson wrote:
>>
>> For review - here is another proposal that takes BR section 4.9.1.1 and
>> puts the 24-hour and 5-day revocation times into subsections that match the
>> CRL reason codes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/BenWilson-Mozilla/servercert/commit/b185a28fcc20d5853747e4506103823e3dc7c282
>> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FBenWilson-Mozilla%2Fservercert%2Fcommit%2Fb185a28fcc20d5853747e4506103823e3dc7c282&data=05%7C01%7Croman.fischer%40swisssign.com%7Ce95c13967f6d4cffa0db08dac376a9d2%7C21322582607f404c82d950ddb1eca5c9%7C1%7C0%7C638037211688809839%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=opmFVkFFcOqc3DWpy%2BwP%2B79ihMxBOPnZE34AGDSKjWY%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ben
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 12:05 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
>> dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:
>>
>> Good point.
>>
>> s/
>>
>> *expected/shall use/ *
>>
>> On 8/9/2022 8:26 μ.μ., Tim Hollebeek wrote:
>>
>> I would prefer standard 2119 language instead of an “expectation”.  There
>> are no documented rules for what it means for a CRLReason to be expected to
>> be a certain value.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Tim
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Servercert-wg <servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org>
>> <servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of *Dimitris
>> Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Servercert-wg
>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 8, 2022 3:21 AM
>> *To:* Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com> <bwilson at mozilla.com>; CA/B Forum
>> Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
>> <servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Servercert-wg] Proposal to Incorporate Mozilla's CRL
>> Revocation Reason Code Requirements into the BRs
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/9/2022 8:22 μ.μ., Ben Wilson wrote:
>>
>> Good suggestion. I can re-work a proposal that re-writes BR sec. 4.9.1.1
>> to re-group the revocation reasons into the reason codes that should be
>> used. Is that what you were thinking?
>>
>>
>> Yes. We should also try to keep the current BRs prioritization. The
>> section begins with the cases where the Certificate(s) need to be revoked
>> within 24h and then moves to the 5-day revocation cases.
>>
>> We could walk this list down making sure that all Mozilla cases are
>> listed (add the ones that are not) and add the expected revocationReason
>> for each case. For example:
>>
>> *The CA SHALL revoke a Certificate within 24 hours if one or more of the
>> following occurs:*
>>
>>    1. *The Subscriber requests in writing that the CA revoke the
>>    Certificate (expected CRLReason:unspecified);*
>>    2. *The Subscriber notifies the CA that the original certificate
>>    request was not authorized and does not retroactively grant authorization
>>    (expected CRLReason:**privilegeWithdrawn**);*
>>    3. *The CA obtains evidence that the Subscriber's Private Key
>>    corresponding to the Public Key in the Certificate suffered a Key
>>    Compromise (expected CRLReason:keyCompromise);*
>>    4. *The CA is made aware of a demonstrated or proven method that can
>>    easily compute the Subscriber's Private Key based on the Public Key in the
>>    Certificate (such as a Debian weak key, see *
>>    *https://wiki.debian.org/SSLkeys*
>>    <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.debian.org%2FSSLkeys&data=05%7C01%7Croman.fischer%40swisssign.com%7Ce95c13967f6d4cffa0db08dac376a9d2%7C21322582607f404c82d950ddb1eca5c9%7C1%7C0%7C638037211688809839%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FV7HivQUf9v8s2xTxi1rVgVbg7XfH9TtU4RjlKL0T6c%3D&reserved=0>*)
>>    (expected CRLReason:keyCompromise);*
>>    5. *The CA obtains evidence that the validation of domain
>>    authorization or control for any Fully-Qualified Domain Name or IP address
>>    in the Certificate should not be relied upon (expected CRLReason: *
>>    *superseded**).*
>>
>> and so on.
>>
>> Does that work?
>>
>> Dimitris.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 6:01 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via
>> Servercert-wg <servercert-wg at cabforum.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>> I believe the proposal, as written, causes confusion in regards to
>> 4.9.1.1. Some of the reasons described in your proposal are already
>> mentioned in 4.9.1.1. Perhaps we should work some more to "unify" the two
>> sections.
>>
>> My proposal would be to update 4.9.1.1 and include the expected CRLReason
>> after each case.
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> Dimitris.
>>
>> On 6/9/2022 8:13 μ.μ., Ben Wilson via Servercert-wg wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> I'm looking for one more endorser.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 12:40 PM Ben Wilson via Servercert-wg <
>> servercert-wg at cabforum.org> wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have created a proposal in Github to incorporate Mozilla's CRL
>> Revocation Reason Code requirements into the Baseline Requirements.
>>
>>
>>
>> See https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues/377
>> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabforum%2Fservercert%2Fissues%2F377&data=05%7C01%7Croman.fischer%40swisssign.com%7Ce95c13967f6d4cffa0db08dac376a9d2%7C21322582607f404c82d950ddb1eca5c9%7C1%7C0%7C638037211688809839%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=D4KPoI9FuCxKdr9yp378P8kEzjJq9wX%2FUEj%2F0SDufv4%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/BenWilson-Mozilla/servercert/commit/52a480803beff1f96d61c4b6d76570ac7adff4d5
>> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FBenWilson-Mozilla%2Fservercert%2Fcommit%2F52a480803beff1f96d61c4b6d76570ac7adff4d5&data=05%7C01%7Croman.fischer%40swisssign.com%7Ce95c13967f6d4cffa0db08dac376a9d2%7C21322582607f404c82d950ddb1eca5c9%7C1%7C0%7C638037211688809839%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LOfjUsptzgpQxI1k6K8oUgU0aj2LDncd48ZzuXe86Hs%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm looking for comments, suggestions, and two endorsers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Servercert-wg mailing list
>> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org
>> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
>> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.cabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fservercert-wg&data=05%7C01%7Croman.fischer%40swisssign.com%7Ce95c13967f6d4cffa0db08dac376a9d2%7C21322582607f404c82d950ddb1eca5c9%7C1%7C0%7C638037211688809839%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iis%2B0QIl3jXlnwoZxV15jIUE%2FGB%2FtJyHdECcBBoSrcQ%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Servercert-wg mailing list
>>
>> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org
>>
>> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.cabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fservercert-wg&data=05%7C01%7Croman.fischer%40swisssign.com%7Ce95c13967f6d4cffa0db08dac376a9d2%7C21322582607f404c82d950ddb1eca5c9%7C1%7C0%7C638037211688809839%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iis%2B0QIl3jXlnwoZxV15jIUE%2FGB%2FtJyHdECcBBoSrcQ%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Servercert-wg mailing list
>> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org
>> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
>> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.cabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fservercert-wg&data=05%7C01%7Croman.fischer%40swisssign.com%7Ce95c13967f6d4cffa0db08dac376a9d2%7C21322582607f404c82d950ddb1eca5c9%7C1%7C0%7C638037211688809839%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iis%2B0QIl3jXlnwoZxV15jIUE%2FGB%2FtJyHdECcBBoSrcQ%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Servercert-wg mailing list
>> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org
>> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
>> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.cabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fservercert-wg&data=05%7C01%7Croman.fischer%40swisssign.com%7Ce95c13967f6d4cffa0db08dac376a9d2%7C21322582607f404c82d950ddb1eca5c9%7C1%7C0%7C638037211688809839%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iis%2B0QIl3jXlnwoZxV15jIUE%2FGB%2FtJyHdECcBBoSrcQ%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Servercert-wg mailing list
>> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org
>> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
>> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.cabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fservercert-wg&data=05%7C01%7Croman.fischer%40swisssign.com%7Ce95c13967f6d4cffa0db08dac376a9d2%7C21322582607f404c82d950ddb1eca5c9%7C1%7C0%7C638037211688965625%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rOfjT8%2B0oEL1XaQtLBTQ5EQOkSK3lJR0AbU1lVyZF68%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Servercert-wg mailing list
>> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org
>> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Servercert-wg mailing listServercert-wg at cabforum.orghttps://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Servercert-wg mailing list
> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20221115/0bb61160/attachment-0001.html>