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

Thu Nov 17 15:46:35 UTC 2022

Sounds good. Thanks, Dimitris.
Ben

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 11:23 PM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:

>
>
> 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 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/20221117/8a5c799b/attachment-0001.html>