[Smcwg-public] Ballot SMC01: Final Guideline for “S/MIME Baseline Requirements”
Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)
dzacharo at harica.gr
Tue Sep 13 16:10:09 UTC 2022
On 13/9/2022 7:01 μ.μ., Stephen Davidson wrote:
>
> Hi Dimitris:
>
> Thank you for the feedback. Both these points were addressed in our
> earlier discussions regarding the draft.
>
> On the issue of OCSP support, you may recall that there were varying
> proposals for varying the requirements for both CRL and OCSP but the
> fact remains that different root distribution programs have
> pre-existing requirements for both of them. Thus, the decision was
> made to retain the existing text. I have suggested that revocation
> services would be a useful focus subject for a future CABF F2F as this
> topic seems to come up in different WG, and any changes must have the
> support of all the root programs.
>
> Similarly, on the issue of C in the Subject DN, this was previously
> discussed several times and the decision was made to stick the current
> text where the CA MAY use the attribute but is not required to.
>
> Best regards, Stephen
>
I did a quick search in previous minutes and I couldn't find consensus
for both those topics. If you can point me to these previous discussions
and minutes that demonstrate consensus among the group, it would be very
helpful.
For the OCSP topic, you mention that "different root distribution
programs have pre-existing requirements". Which program, other than
Microsoft, requires OCSP for S/MIME Certificates?
As things stand, HARICA will be forced to vote "No" to this ballot.
Dimitris.
>
> *From:* Smcwg-public <smcwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of
> *Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Smcwg-public
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 13, 2022 7:25 AM
> *To:* smcwg-public at cabforum.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Smcwg-public] Ballot SMC01: Final Guideline for
> “S/MIME Baseline Requirements”
>
>
> After a more detailed review by the HARICA team, we noticed some areas
> of concern that we hope will be considered for update by the authors
> and endorsers of this ballot.
>
> * 7.1.2.3 c
>
> o authorityInformationAccess (*SHALL *be present) ->
> authorityInformationAccess (*SHOULD *be present) [Rationale:
> OCSP is not currently required for S/MIME Certificates by all
> Certificate Consumers. Only Microsoft Root Program requires it
> and perhaps this is due to a copy-over from the TLS BRs
> without performing a technical analysis specifically on S/MIME
> or clientAuth or codeSigning Certificates. The CSCWG already
> removed the requirement for OCSP in Subscriber Certificates in
> the CSBRs].
> o The authorityInformationAccess extension *SHALL *contain at
> least one accessMethod value of type id-ad-ocsp that specifies
> the URI of the Issuing CA’s OCSP responder. -> The
> authorityInformationAccess extension *MAY *contain at least
> one accessMethod value of type id-ad-ocsp that specifies the
> URI of the Issuing CA’s OCSP responder. [Rationale: same as above]
>
> * 7.1.4.2.4 Subject DN attributes for organization-validated profile
> and 7.1.4.2.5 Subject DN attributes for sponsor-validated profile
> subject:countryName *MAY *-> subject:countryName *SHALL
> *[Rationale: Organization Names must contain a Country Name to
> indicate where this Organization is located. This applies to the
> organization-validated and the sponsor-validated profile. It is
> also referenced in Appendix A - Registration Schemes]
>
>
> Thank you,
> Dimitris.
>
>
> On 8/9/2022 10:03 π.μ., Stephen Davidson via Smcwg-public wrote:
>
> *Ballot SMC01: Final Guideline for “S/MIME Baseline Requirements” *
>
> **
>
> *Purpose of Ballot:*
>
> The S/MIME Certificate Working Group was chartered to discuss,
> adopt, and maintain policies, frameworks, and standards for the
> issuance and management of Publicly-Trusted S/MIME Certificates.
> This ballot adopts a new “S/MIME Baseline Requirements” that
> includes requirements for verification of control over email
> addresses, identity validation for natural persons and legal
> entities, key management and certificate lifecycle, certificate
> profiles for S/MIME Certificates and Issuing CA Certificates, as
> well as CA operational and audit practices.
>
> An S/MIME Certificate for the purposes of this document can be
> identified by the existence of an Extended Key Usage (EKU) for
> id-kp-emailProtection (OID: 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.4) and the inclusion
> of a rfc822Name or an otherName of type id-on-SmtpUTF8Mailbox in
> the subjectAltName extension in the Certificate.
>
> The following motion has been proposed by Stephen Davidson of
> DigiCert and endorsed by Martijn Katerbarg of Sectigo and Ben
> Wilson of Mozilla.
>
> *Charter Voting References*
>
> Section 5.1 (“Voting Structure”)
> <https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/blob/e6ad111f4477010cbff409cd939c5ac1c7c85ccc/docs/SMCWG-charter.md#51-voting-structure>of
> the SMCWG Charter says:
>
> In order for a ballot to be adopted by the SMCWG, two-thirds or
> more of the votes cast by the Certificate Issuers must be in favor
> of the ballot and more than 50% of the votes cast by the
> Certificate Consumers must be in favor of the ballot. At least one
> member of each class must vote in favor of a ballot for it to be
> adopted. Quorum is the average number of Member organizations
> (cumulative, regardless of Class) that have participated in the
> previous three (3) SMCWG Meetings or Teleconferences (not counting
> subcommittee meetings thereof).
>
> *— MOTION BEGINS —**
> *
> This ballot adopts the “Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and
> Management of Publicly-Trusted S/MIME Certificates” (“S/MIME
> Baseline Requirements”) as Version 1.0.0.
>
> The proposed S/MIME Baseline Requirements may be found at
> https://github.com/cabforum/smime/compare/7b3ab3c55dd92052a8dc0d4f85a2ac26269c222e...28c0b904fe54f1c5f6c71d18c4786a3e02c76f52
> or the attached document.
>
> The SMCWG Chair or Vice-Chair is permitted to update the Relevant
> Dates and Version Number of the S/MIME Baseline Requirements to
> reflect final dates.
>
> *— MOTION ENDS —**
> *
> This ballot proposes a Final Guideline. The procedure for approval
> of this ballot is as follows:
>
> Discussion (7+ days)
> Start Time: 8 September 2022 17:00 UTC
> End Time: 15 September 2022 17:00 UTC
>
> Vote for approval (7 days)
> Start Time: 15 September 2022 17:00 UTC
> End Time: 22 September 2022 17:00 UTC
>
> IPR Review (60 days)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Smcwg-public mailing list
>
> Smcwg-public at cabforum.org
>
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/smcwg-public
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/smcwg-public/attachments/20220913/fb640d38/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Smcwg-public
mailing list