[Smcwg-public] Approved Minutes of SMCWG October 27, 2021

Stephen Davidson Stephen.Davidson at digicert.com
Thu Nov 25 16:43:48 UTC 2021

Minutes of SMCWG

October 27, 2021


These are the Approved Minutes of the Teleconference described in the
subject of this message. Corrections and clarifications where needed are
encouraged by reply.


Adrian Mueller (SwissSign), Adriano Santoni (Actalis), Ali Gholami (Telia
Company), Andreas Henschel (D-TRUST), Atsushi Inaba  (GlobalSign), Ben
Wilson (Mozilla), Bruce Morton (Entrust), Chris Kemmerer  (SSL.com), Clint
Wilson (Apple), Corey Bonnell  (DigiCert), Daniel Zens (GlobalTrust), Don
Sheehy (WebTrust), Enrico Entschew  (D-TRUST), Eusebio Herrera (Camerfirma),
Hazhar Ismail (MSC Trustgate.com), India Donald (Federal PKI), Inigo
Barreira (Sectigo), Janet Hines  (SecureTrust), Joanna Fox (TrustCor),
Li-Chun Chen  (Chunghwa Telecom), Mads Henriksveen  (BuyPass), Markus
Wichmann (TeleTrust), Matthias Wiedenhorst  (ACAB'c), Martijn Katerbarg
(Sectigo), Mauricio Fernandez (TeleTrust), Morad Abou Nasser (TeleTrust),
Mrugesh Chandarana (IdenTrust), Patrycja Tulinska (PSW), Pedro Fuentes
(OISTE), Rebecca Kelley (Apple), Renne Rodriguez (Apple), Russ Housley
(Vigil Security), Sebastian Schulz (GlobalSign), Stephen Davidson
(DigiCert), Tadahiko Ito (SECOM Trust Systems), Thomas Connelly (Federal
PKI), Wendy Brown (Federal PKI)

1. Roll Call

The Roll Call was taken.

2. Read Antitrust Statement

The Antitrust/Compliance Statement was read.

3. Review Agenda

4. Approval of minutes from last teleconference

The minutes of the October 14 teleconference were approved.  

5. Discussion 

Discussion continued on the maximum validity period in light of the Apple
programme and the gmail guidelines stipulating 825 day maximum validity.
Based on feedback from the CAs and elsewhere, Ben Wilson of Mozilla
suggested that this period may be short, at least in the initial version of
the S/MIME BR that could be stepped down in future versions. He suggested
that S/MIME has a different threat model from TLS. 


Wendy Brown noted that a short profile might push enterprises away from
public trust S/MIME.  It was also noted that equally the shorter life may
encourage those enterprises to move forward with automation.  Tadahiko Ito
noted that automation for S/MIME was not necessarily widely deployed today.


Clint Wilson suggested that another approach would be to allow a longer
validity for the Legacy profile - in return for stating a future deprecation
date for that profile.  Clint noted that Apple had not received much feed
back on the updated CA policy, including the 825 day validity period.
Stephen Davidson noted there may be a tradeoff of having the flexible Legacy
profile at 825 days for an extended period, versus having the Legacy profile
for 1095 days with a fixed sunset for its use.  


It was discussed whether S/MIME validity was best dealt with as a policy
issue or should be a matter of technical enforcement by application
software.  It was generally agreed that a common policy standard was
preferred.  It was agreed that the WG should seek affirmation from the Cert
Consumers/ root stores that they intend to accept the S/MIME BR as the
minimum requirement for S/MIME.


It was raised that the S/MIME ecosystem will be simpler to standardize when
some of the overlaps, such as document signing, are clarified (such as by
the IETF proposal for a dedicated EKU for doc signing).


Discussion was held the contents of the primary deliverable as described in
the SMCWG charter, and whether the WG was adequately on track:


Verification of control over email addresses

*	Certificate profiles for S/MIME certificates and Issuing CA
*	Key management and certificate lifecycle
*	CA operational practices, physical/logical security, etc.


Stephen Davidson emphasized that drafting was underway on the S/MIME BR and
encouraged WG members to review the text as coverage for some topics that
have not been specifically discussed in the WG have been carried over from
the TLS BR.


*	Draft S/MIME Baseline Requirements
*	Draft S/MIME Profiles


Comments and contributions are welcomed, particularly on methods relating to
mailbox verification.  We are generally taking the approach of
"incorporating in" relevant text from other CABF documents rather than
"referring out". Future discussion will focus on:


*	Identity validation for natural persons and legal entities


Clint Wilson raised that he would like to add focused discussion on the
requirements surrounding the 'problematic practice' of the operation of
external Sub CAs to the agenda of a future meeting.  Stephen noted this
would be done alongside discussion of delegated RAs.


6. Any Other Business



7. Next call

Next call: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 11 a.m. US Eastern.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/smcwg-public/attachments/20211125/e633fefc/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4999 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/smcwg-public/attachments/20211125/e633fefc/attachment-0001.p7s>

More information about the Smcwg-public mailing list