[Servercert-wg] [EXTERNAL] Re: Discussion Period Begins - Ballot SC-071: Subscriber Agreement and Terms of Use Consolidation

Tue Apr 30 20:13:42 UTC 2024

Hi Ben,

We have some feedback from our legal team.

First suggestion is to simplify the change to only address the objectives of the ballot:
5. Subscriber Agreement: That, if the CA and Subscriber are not Affiliated, the Subscriber and CA are parties to a legally valid and enforceable Subscriber Agreement that satisfies these Requirements, or, if the CA and Subscriber are the same entity or are Affiliated, the Applicant Representative has accepted the Subscriber Agreement;

Alternative (less preferable) option, accepts additional warranties that are superfluous to the objectives of the ballot, but fixes the legal impossibility of the last item (iii):
5. Subscriber Agreement: That,
i. the Subscriber has access to the most current version of the Subscriber Agreement, which is posted to the CA’s policy document repository or has been provided through other means;
ii. the applicable Subscriber Agreement is the Subscriber Agreement that was in force when the Certificate was issued; and
iii. if the CA and Subscriber are not Affiliated, the Subscriber and CA  are parties to a legally valid and enforceable Subscriber Agreement that satisfies these Requirements, or, if the CA and Subscriber are the same entity or are Affiliated, the Applicant Representative has accepted the Subscriber Agreement;

Thanks, Bruce.

From: Servercert-wg <servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org> On Behalf Of Ben Wilson via Servercert-wg
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2024 3:06 AM
To: Wayne Thayer <wthayer at gmail.com>
Cc: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [Servercert-wg] [EXTERNAL] Re: Discussion Period Begins - Ballot SC-071: Subscriber Agreement and Terms of Use Consolidation

I removed it because I didn't like the phrasing. I can propose other wording for an effective date, unless anyone else wants to take a crack at it. On Wed, Apr 24, 2024, 1: 59 AM Wayne Thayer <wthayer@ gmail. com> wrote: Thanks Ben!The

I removed it because I didn't like the phrasing. I can propose other wording for an effective date, unless anyone else wants to take a crack at it.

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024, 1:59 AM Wayne Thayer <wthayer at gmail.com<mailto:wthayer at gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks Ben!

The second commit you linked removes the effective date for CP/CPS updates from section 9.6.3. While I'm not convinced that this is necessary, it seems to add some clarity. Was that paragraph meant to remain in place? If not, what is the reasoning?

Otherwise I am also happy with these changes.

- Wayne

On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 4:21 PM Aaron Gable via Servercert-wg <servercert-wg at cabforum.org<mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>> wrote:
Hi Ben,

Thank you! I believe those combine with the previous commits to produce this redline, which looks good to me:
https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/41f01640748fa612386f8b1a3031cd1bff3d4f35...682488a832db5b6b4fcdd4cd7cbd86ae9541453e<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/41f01640748fa612386f8b1a3031cd1bff3d4f35...682488a832db5b6b4fcdd4cd7cbd86ae9541453e__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!c-eKDU27xX1FU55g2nJgccUKbM9SvUI7wCrdCc8dTazyEHAuWyMH8NRxYB1svMqXlfEAgy3PRkZE8b3FbdIFdqOVSFtXHg$>

Aaron

On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 4:25 AM Ben Wilson <bwilson at mozilla.com<mailto:bwilson at mozilla.com>> wrote:
Dimitris, Aaron, Wayne, and Others,
We are working on improving the language of the ballot.
Here are a couple of versions for you to review and provide feedback on.
https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/commit/d0d962e04bd81a71ebf71a7c45a015cbc75ac979 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/cabforum/servercert/commit/d0d962e04bd81a71ebf71a7c45a015cbc75ac979__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!c-eKDU27xX1FU55g2nJgccUKbM9SvUI7wCrdCc8dTazyEHAuWyMH8NRxYB1svMqXlfEAgy3PRkZE8b3FbdIFdqO29mgZfA$>
https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/commit/682488a832db5b6b4fcdd4cd7cbd86ae9541453e<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/cabforum/servercert/commit/682488a832db5b6b4fcdd4cd7cbd86ae9541453e__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!c-eKDU27xX1FU55g2nJgccUKbM9SvUI7wCrdCc8dTazyEHAuWyMH8NRxYB1svMqXlfEAgy3PRkZE8b3FbdIFdqOn2FZUfg$>
Thanks,
Ben

On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 8:29 PM Dustin Hollenback via Servercert-wg <servercert-wg at cabforum.org<mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>> wrote:
Thank you all for the great feedback! We’ll take this offline and re-work it based on the input.

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: Sunday, April 21, 2024 1:24 AM
To: Aaron Gable <aaron at letsencrypt.org<mailto:aaron at letsencrypt.org>>; CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <servercert-wg at cabforum.org<mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Servercert-wg] Discussion Period Begins - Ballot SC-071: Subscriber Agreement and Terms of Use Consolidation

On 19/4/2024 9:54 μ.μ., Aaron Gable wrote:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:07 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Servercert-wg <servercert-wg at cabforum.org<mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>> wrote:
What happens if the SA/ToS document changes? I had the impression that the ACME client would be able to see the new version and ask that the updated version is accepted. How does this process work in practice?

The ACME protocol itself only has one mechanism for updating the Terms of Service: respond to all requests with HTTP 403 Forbidden, error type "urn:ietf:params:acme:error:userActionRequired", and a link to a URL where a human can take action to agree to the new terms. Breaking every single ACME client until their operator takes manual action on a webpage is unacceptable and unrealistic, so ACME server operators do not actually do this.

The ACME protocol was designed to support popular use cases promoting automation. The level of automation can be decided by the Applicant. For example, if an Applicant chooses the dns-01 challenge and wants to manually update their DNS server to include the challenge, so be it. That doesn't mean that this breaks every single ACME client. It's supposed to be a feature, not a bug :-)

My point is that if an Applicant wants to automate the response to a new Terms of Service, they can program the ACME client to connect to the return URL with the new document, accept it and continue with the request.

However, this is preceded by one caveat: RFC 8555 Section 7.3.3 says "If the server has changed its terms of service since a client initially accepted, and the server is unwilling to process a request without explicit agreement to the new terms, ...".

So there's an easy path forward: include language in the Subscriber Agreement to the effect of "this agreement may be updated", and always be willing to process requests without explicit agreement to the new terms. At a glance, Let's Encrypt, Google Trust Services, GoDaddy, and HARICA all take this approach in their Subscriber Agreement documents.

So I think there are two potential issues with the proposed language:
1) "The Certificate Warranties specifically include [that]... the Subscriber has been provided with the most current version of the Subscriber Agreement" -- I think this language is probably fine, as long as "posted to the CA's policy document repository" counts as "provided". But I'd prefer not to have to split hairs, and so would prefer language which more clearly makes it obvious that the updated document does not have to proactively be given to each Subscriber individually and that simply posting it to the public repository is sufficient.

In some cases, CAs point to a URL that contains the latest version of the Subscriber Agreement, so in one sense the Applicant agrees to that -latest- version without the need to see a different URL. The only concern here is what happens to implementations where the Applicant accepts the Subscriber Agreement at account creation and not at Certificate Issuance/Retrieval. In that scenario, the CA would not be able to claim that the Applicant has accepted the updated version, right?

2) "The Certificate Warranties specifically include [that]... the applicable Subscriber Agreement is the Subscriber Agreement that was accepted when the Certificate was issued" -- Again, this language is probably technically fine, in that the Subscriber Agreement can include language saying that Subscribers are assumed to have accepted future updates to the document. But I'd still prefer not to split hairs, and so I think that Wayne's suggestion of "...that was in force when the Certificate was issued" is a good one.

I also prefer this language but would that address the concern mentioned above?

Unrelated to the discussion above, our Counsel has suggested one other simplification of the language in the ballot: "if the CA and Subscriber are not Affiliated, the Subscriber and CA are parties to a legally valid and enforceable Subscriber Agreement that satisfies these Requirements, or, if the CA and Subscriber are the same entity or are Affiliated, the Applicant Representative has accepted the Subscriber Agreement;" seems unnecessarily wordy. Instead, they suggest just "the Subscriber and CA (even if they are the same entity or are Affiliated) are parties to a legally valid and enforceable Subscriber Agreement that satisfies these Requirements;".

Great improvement indeed!

Thanks,
Dimitris.
_______________________________________________
Servercert-wg mailing list
Servercert-wg at cabforum.org<mailto:Servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!c-eKDU27xX1FU55g2nJgccUKbM9SvUI7wCrdCc8dTazyEHAuWyMH8NRxYB1svMqXlfEAgy3PRkZE8b3FbdIFdqNWepoNkg$>
_______________________________________________
Servercert-wg mailing list
Servercert-wg at cabforum.org<mailto:Servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!c-eKDU27xX1FU55g2nJgccUKbM9SvUI7wCrdCc8dTazyEHAuWyMH8NRxYB1svMqXlfEAgy3PRkZE8b3FbdIFdqNWepoNkg$>
Any email and files/attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If this message has been sent to you in error, you must not copy, distribute or disclose of the information it contains. Please notify Entrust immediately and delete the message from your system.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20240430/feb78a4a/attachment-0001.html>