[Servercert-wg] Proposal to Incorporate Mozilla's CRL Revocation Reason Code Requirements into the BRs
Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)
dzacharo at harica.gr
Thu Nov 17 06:22:59 UTC 2022
On 15/11/2022 6:11 μ.μ., Ben Wilson wrote:
> That could simplify it, but Mozilla's CRL Reason Code rules would
> still supersede that section.
I don't see it as "superseding" but differently "presented". Mozilla
chose that particular presentation format without taking into
consideration the time limits for revocation. MRSP
<https://github.com/mozilla/pkipolicy/blob/master/rootstore/policy.md#611-end-entity-tls-certificate-crlrevocation-reasons>only
mentions the reasons and expectations for using such reasons. The BRs
are more explicit in the use cases and it's more important for the CA to
know which cases must be revoked within 24 hours and which ones must be
revoked within 5 days. It's a better "starting point" for CAs, and
that's that they are used to follow.
I believe we can successfully update 4.9.1.1 to aligned with MRSP
section 6.1 without changing the current presentation format of
revocation use cases in the BRs. If you are open to the idea, I can work
with you on a more concrete proposal and see how it looks.
Thanks,
Dimitris.
>
> 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 <http://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>
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto:bwilson at mozilla.com>;
>> CA/B Forum Server Certificate
>> WG Public Discussion List
>> <servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
>> <mailto: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 list
>> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org
>> https://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/20221117/36a46bc8/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Servercert-wg
mailing list