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

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)]

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//) //(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    //*superseded*//)//./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://github.com/BenWilson-Mozilla/servercert/commit/52a480803beff1f96d61c4b6d76570ac7adff4d5
>>
>>         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
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     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/20220908/3bd99839/attachment-0001.html>