[cabf_validation] Domain Validation Update
kirk_hall at trendmicro.com
kirk_hall at trendmicro.com
Tue Apr 5 15:43:40 MST 2016
Jeremy, I’m just catching up, and don’t know if the latest draft should go to the public list yet, or wait until after Thursday’s call (maybe wait to see if there are any remaining issues).
But when you send, why don’t you change the date from March 11 to the date you send it… And maybe accept all the “track changes” revisions so the right column is clean for review - there’s a lot more to review there than just the most recent changes.
Also, maybe explain the two column approach (why we are doing it this way) just so people are oriented, as this is a different way of sending detailed drafts.
From: validation-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Rowley
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 7:01 PM
To: Jeremy Rowley; Peter Bowen
Cc: validation at cabforum.org; Rick Andrews
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] Domain Validation Update
Are we ready to send this to the main mailing list or do we want to discuss on Thursday’s call first?
From: validation-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Rowley
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 7:55 PM
To: Peter Bowen
Cc: validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org>; Rick Andrews
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] Domain Validation Update
Right. It intentionally does not require a response from the same email address.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com<mailto:pzb at amzn.com>> wrote:
Rick,
I think a common workflow is to send an email containing a token and URL. The person receiving the email goes to the URL and inputs the token on the resulting webpage. Alternatively the URL has the token embedded so no input is necessary. Either way there is no emailed reply, so there is no from address. Therefore I don’t think adding a From requirement on the reply will work.
Thanks,
Peter
On Mar 31, 2016, at 4:10 PM, Rick Andrews <rick_andrews at symantec.com<mailto:rick_andrews at symantec.com>> wrote:
Doug, others,
I just noticed something in “4. Constructed Email to Domain Contact” that seems like a grey area.
We’re allowed to send an email out to any of the five reserved email addresses, but the spec is silent on whether the response must be received from those addresses. For example, “postmaster” might be a distribution list that I’m a member of, but when I reply to the email, my email address is the sender. Do we feel that the reply must come from the same address to which we sent the request?
-Rick
From: validation-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Doug Beattie
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 9:49 AM
To: Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com<mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>>
Cc: validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] Domain Validation Update
Sorry about posting that last email to the public list, guess the draft is out now.. Please feel free to send out the clean version to supersede my mistake…
Doug
From: J.C. Jones [mailto:jjones at mozilla.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 11:55 AM
To: Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com<mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>>
Cc: Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com<mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com>>; validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] Domain Validation Update
Sounds good to me! Here's a redline for that change.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com<mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>> wrote:
Thanks - I think we should uncapitalize to match the rest of the document. As defining Certificate Request will impact the rest of the document, that should be done in a separate ballot (imo).
From: J.C. Jones [mailto:jjones at mozilla.com<mailto:jjones at mozilla.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 9:45 AM
To: Jeremy Rowley
Cc: Doug Beattie; validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] Domain Validation Update
Jeremy,
My only comment on this draft regards the capitalized "Certificate Request" without a definition in methods 6 & 7 which could be construed to mean a specific PKCS#10 CSR, which has implications for ACME's order of operations. [1] Perhaps we could un-capitalize it to match the rest of the document, or provide a definition such as:
> Certificate Request: The logical process of requesting a Certificate from a CA.
Thanks!
1) https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2016-March/000249.html<https://apac01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fcabforum.org%2fpipermail%2fvalidation%2f2016-March%2f000249.html&data=01%7c01%7cdoug.beattie%40globalsign.com%7cb9ffe1c8597d442e768608d358b3c11f%7c8fff67c182814635b62f93106cb7a9a8%7c0&sdata=tXFztdvOOmfNsh3UMiKuy%2fSYhJkk%2f%2baTQO%2b3PCriLHg%3d>
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com<mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>> wrote:
Thanks Doug - any additional comments on the draft? Are we ready to present it as a working group product?
From: Doug Beattie [mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com<mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 8:14 AM
To: Jeremy Rowley; validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org>
Subject: RE: [cabf_validation] Domain Validation Update
That’s fine by me.
From: Jeremy Rowley [mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 6:54 PM
To: Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com<mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com>>; validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org>
Subject: RE: [cabf_validation] Domain Validation Update
What if we dropped “Verification by” since every single heading has it?
From: validation-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Doug Beattie
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 11:05 AM
To: validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] Domain Validation Update
Based on today’s call, I updated the proposed section headings for your consideration.
Jeremy - do you want to add these to the next version of the ballot?
3.2.2.4.1 Verification by validating Applicant is a Domain Contact <not awesome, open to ideas>
3.2.2.4.2 Verification by Domain Contact using a random number
3.2.2.4.3 Verification by Domain Contact using phone
3.2.2.4.4 Verification by Domain Name based constructed emails
3.2.2.4.5 Verification by DAD
3.2.2.4.6 Verification by agree upon web site change
3.2.2.4.7 Verification by agreed upon DNS change
3.2.2.4.8 Verification by IP address
3.2.2.4.9 Verification by Test Certificate
3.2.2.4.10 Verification by Random Number in a certificate <not Certificate, not Test Certificate, but just a self-signed(?) certificate? I defer to the ACME experts.
Doug
From: validation-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Doug Beattie
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 3:40 PM
To: Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com<mailto:pzb at amzn.com>>
Cc: validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] Domain Validation Update
Sure, try this:
1. Verify the Applicant is <the new term for Registrant, technical or admin contact>
2. Send Random value via email, fax, SMS or postal mail to <that same new term>
3. Call the <same new term>
4. Send Random Number to one of the 5 approved constructed email address
5. Use a Domain Authorization Document
6. Make agreed upon change to web site
7. Make agreed upon change to DNS TXT or CAA record
8. Verify IP address control
9. Use a Test Certificate
10. Use a Random Number in a Certificate
Doug
From: Peter Bowen [mailto:pzb at amzn.com]
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:48 PM
To: Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com<mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com>>
Cc: Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com<mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>>; validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] Domain Validation Update
I think putting heading on the methods is not a bad idea. Anyone want to take a shot proposing a title for each?
On Mar 11, 2016, at 6:19 AM, Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com<mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com>> wrote:
Sure, that works. Looks like our ballot need to include a change to EVGL, so we should add that to the end of the current document/proposed ballot.
I mentioned this before, but with the long list of complicated domain validation options, I think each one should be in a numbered subsection under 3.2.2.4, what do others think?
Also, we might want to number the paragraphs in some of the longer options, like methods 2 and 4, so everyone can more easily reference the specific items.
From: Peter Bowen [mailto:pzb at amzn.com]
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 9:14 AM
To: Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com<mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com>>
Cc: Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com<mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>>; validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] Domain Validation Update
EV currently says: "using a procedure specified in Section 3.2.2.4 of the Baseline Requirements, except that a CA MAY NOT verify a domain using the procedure described subsection 3.2.2.4(7)”.
With the removal of (7) and insertion of other methods, the EV guidelines are going to need updating anyway. EV can be updated to say “using at least one of the methods specified in BR 3.2.2.4” and then make it own reuse statement. For example:
11.7.1 Verification Requirements
(1) The CA SHALL confirm that, as of the date the Certificate issues, either the CA or a Delegated Third Party has confirmed, for each Fully-Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) in the Certificate, the authority of the Applicant to receive a Certificate containing the FQDN using at least one of the methods specified in the Baseline Requirements section 3.2.2.4 or via the method described in Appendix F. The method in Appendix F shall only be used when the right most label in the FQDN is “onion”.
Completed confirmations of Applicant authority may be valid for the issuance of multiple certificates over time. In all cases, the confirmation must have been initiated no more than 13 months prior to certificate issuance.
For purposes of domain validation, the term Applicant includes the Applicant’s Parent Company, Subsidiary Company, or Affiliate.
On Mar 11, 2016, at 6:06 AM, Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com<mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com>> wrote:
EV references this same section and they are limited to reusing the data to 13 months and up to 27 months for reissue, so this gets a bit complicated if we need to call out durations in this section.
From: validation-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bowen
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 9:03 AM
To: Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com<mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>>
Cc: validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] Domain Validation Update
I suggest we change the introduction (lines A & B) to read
3.2.2.4. Authorization by Domain Name Registrant
The CA SHALL confirm that, as of the date the Certificate issues, either the CA or a Delegated Third Party has confirmed, for each Fully-Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) in the Certificate, the authority of the Applicant to receive a Certificate containing the FQDN using at least one of the methods listed below.
Completed confirmations of Applicant authority may be valid for the issuance of multiple certificates over time. In all cases, the confirmation must have been initiated no more than 39 months prior to certificate issuance.
For purposes of domain validation, the term Applicant includes the Applicant’s Parent Company, Subsidiary Company, or Affiliate.
There has been lots of discussion about the model where a CA validates domain authorization prior to receiving a specific certificate request. I think that this revised text should assist in clarifying the situation. It also make it very clear that the 39 month re-use rule applies to domain authorizations, rather than having to infer it based on the text in "Identification and Authentication for Routine Re‐key”.
Thanks,
Peter
On Mar 10, 2016, at 9:34 PM, Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com<mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>> wrote:
Here’s the updated domain validation draft based on today’s discussion (and a couple of attempts to clarify items of confusion). I look forward to the comments.
<Domain Validation Draft (3-11-2016).docx>_______________________________________________
Validation mailing list
Validation at cabforum.org<mailto:Validation at cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation<https://apac01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fcabforum.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fvalidation&data=01%7c01%7cdoug.beattie%40globalsign.com%7cb9ffe1c8597d442e768608d358b3c11f%7c8fff67c182814635b62f93106cb7a9a8%7c0&sdata=aMi4weRqYko5dsYfCrkmvbMfZ%2fN4bMXXmDQ2y%2fipSm4%3d>
_______________________________________________
Validation mailing list
Validation at cabforum.org<mailto:Validation at cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation<https://apac01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fcabforum.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fvalidation&data=01%7c01%7cdoug.beattie%40globalsign.com%7cb9ffe1c8597d442e768608d358b3c11f%7c8fff67c182814635b62f93106cb7a9a8%7c0&sdata=aMi4weRqYko5dsYfCrkmvbMfZ%2fN4bMXXmDQ2y%2fipSm4%3d>
_______________________________________________
Validation mailing list
Validation at cabforum.org<mailto:Validation at cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation
<table class="TM_EMAIL_NOTICE"><tr><td><pre>
TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential
and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or
disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
</pre></td></tr></table>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20160405/a7ed0bb2/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Validation
mailing list