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

Wed Jan 4 18:50:10 UTC 2023

Hi Dimitris,

I have submitted two comments that I think need to be resolved.

I think the first "1" should be written as:

The Subscriber requests in writing, *without giving a reason required to be
specified by this section 4.9.1.1,* that the CA revoke the ..."

Number 10 in the second list should be written as:

"10. Revocation is required by the CA's Certificate Policy and/or
Certification Practice Statement *for a reason that is not otherwise
required to be specified by this section 4.9.1.1* ..."

Ben

On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 1:12 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:

> I created https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/pull/405/files which
> includes some elements from your proposal and MRSP language.
>
> I also did a comparison of BRs section 4.9.1.1 revocation use cases that
> are already mentioned in MRSP section 6.1.1 (attached). There are only a
> few revocation use cases mentioned in MRSP that are not explicitly
> described in 4.9.1.1 so we could try adding those to 4.9.1.1 for full
> consistency.
>
> This proposal:
>
>    - explains the expectations for each reasonCode
>    - preserves the existing 5 revocation use cases for 24h and the 11
>    cases for 5-day that CAs/auditors are already familiar with, and adds an
>    explicit reasonCode per MRSP.
>
> This presentation format is already familiar to CAs, less ambiguous, and
> IMO minimizes the risk of implementing incorrectly.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Dimitris.
>
>
> On 17/11/2022 5:46 μ.μ., Ben Wilson wrote:
>
> 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/20230104/faab00e6/attachment-0001.html>