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

Ben Wilson bwilson at mozilla.com
Fri Jan 6 23:07:41 UTC 2023 

I am preparing the ballot, but I think that the effective dates should be
included in your GitHub version. (Currently at
https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/0a07e046326101ef3b57572daebd3cf45ff4840f.)
CAs in Mozilla's program should have already been including reason codes in
CRLs.  Elsewhere, others have suggested March 15 and September 15 as
potential effective dates for other ballots, but I'd be willing to say July
1st or July 15th. What are everyone's thoughts?

Ben


On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 10:44 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:

> Language updated in
> https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/pull/405/commits/0a07e046326101ef3b57572daebd3cf45ff4840f
> .
>
> I don't see any other unresolved comments. Ben, please do one last review
> in case I missed something.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Dimitris.
>
>
>
> On 5/1/2023 7:24 μ.μ., Ben Wilson wrote:
>
> Great - thanks.
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 10:06 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
> dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>> I saw your comments with proposed language, and here are my thoughts,
>> in-line:
>>
>> On 4/1/2023 8:50 μ.μ., Ben Wilson wrote:
>>
>> 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 ..."
>>
>>
>> I prefer your earlier comment
>> <https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/pull/405/files#r1061778056>
>> which says
>>
>> "1. The Subscriber requests in writing, *without giving a reason,* that
>> the CA revoke the ..."
>>
>> I believe this language is simpler as long as this option is available to
>> Subscribers that just want to revoke a certificate and don't want to
>> suggest a specific reason. I assume this is still allowed.
>>
>>
>> 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* ..."
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> If you are ok with the first option, I will update the PR.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Dimitris.
>>
>>
>> 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/20230106/7a59d0fb/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Servercert-wg mailing list