CA/Browser Forum
Home » All CA/Browser Forum Posts » 2025-10-08 Minutes of the S/MIME Certificate Working Group

2025-10-08 Minutes of the S/MIME Certificate Working Group

Minutes of SMCWG

October 8, 2025

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


1. Note Well and Antitrust Statement


2. Roll Call

  • Taken from recording. See “Attendees” below.

3. Approval of Prior Minutes

  • Minutes from September 10 and September 24 were approved.
  • Minutes were taken by Stephen Davidson.

4. Agenda Review

  • The agenda was reviewed. There were no additions.

5. Membership Applications

Stephen Davidson noted that BuyPass had requested to change their membership from Certificate Issuer to Interested Party as they have ceased issuance of public trust S/MIME. Stephen thanked BuyPass, and in particular Mads Henriksveen, for their contributions to the group.


6. Discussion Topics

* Topic 1: Stephen noted that SMC014 - DNSSEC for CAA was currently in IPR until October 10 so a new version of the S/MIME BR would be published on October 13 at the latest.  No essential claims have been received at this time.

* Topic 2:  Personal Name in CN vs split in givenName and surname.  Stephen noted that the Legacy generation profiles allowed the Personal Name to be displayed in the CN as provided by an Enterprise RA.  The Multipurpose and Strict profiles require the givenName and surname to be split into the respective attributes. Some Certificate Issuers have reported that has been an obstacle for some orgs who do not have directories that match that pattern.  The WG discussed if there was sufficient rationale to restore the original allowance as it was described in the Legacy profiles into the Multipurpose profiles?

Clint Wilson said he’d prefer to consistently show the Email attribute as the CN. Stephen noted that Enterprises typically desired showing Personal Names in the CN because of the display in email clients. Clint suggested that it might make sense to update an inventory of how email clients displayed certificate details.

Stefan Selbitschka agreed that companies might not necessarily have clean data but questioned if relaxing the requirements was the correct option. Martijn Katerbarg noted that the Mailbox- and Org-validated profiles existed for enterprises who could not provide the names as required, agreed by Ashish Dhiman.

Ashish pointed out that the “name” attributes were in fact optional in the Sponsor-validated profile – and as a result there was some confusion among Orgs, if name details are not to be included in the certificate, if the Sponsor-validated or Org-validated profile should be used.

Judith Spencer said that Enterprises should be allowed to name their users as they know them (i.e., to allow the use of the complete Personal Name in the CN rather than to split it). Stephen agreed that artificial hurdles were undesirable. Albert de Ruyter supported flexibility.

Clint said email clients wanted consistency and reliability of information – and that sometimes increased flexibility for subscribers meant decreased reliability for relying parties. The WG did not reach a conclusion at this time.

  • Topic 3: The WG returned to the topic of Pseudonym. Stephen noted that this was an issue for precisely that point: increased flexibility left room for decreased reliability. The group agreed that the Sponsor-validated profiles were intended for natural person users. The WG reviewed Section 3.1.3 uniqueness of pseudonym and the uniqueness requirement.

Judith Spencer said the Subject required uniqueness, not a single attribute. The WG recalled that the uniqueness requirement was introduced as a flag that pseudonyms were intended for personal use – not as a side door to use corporate roles like Support. Martijn pointed out the pseudonym was unique to the subject not the email address.

  • Topic 3: F2F agenda. Stephen noted that the academic researchers would speak with the group about their S/MINE study later in November. The F2F time would be used to discuss mDL and eID, as well as roadmap. This might include the overlap of domain validation methods with the TLS BR.

7. Ballot Status Updates

*  In Development:  Pseudonym, mDL, eID
*  In Discussion Period: NA
*  In Voting Period: NA
*  Under IPR Review: SMC014: DNSSEC for CAA (until October 10)
*  Approved and Effective: SMC013 PQC for S/MIME (as of August 22)

8. Next Meeting

Date: Friday October 17 2025 at the Warsaw F2F meeting. The October 22 teleconference was cancelled.


9. Any Other Business


10. Adjournment

  • The meeting was adjourned.

11. Attendees

Adriano Santoni (Actalis S.p.A.), Albert de Ruiter (Logius PKIoverheid), Andreas Henschel (D-TRUST), Andy Warner (Google), Ashish Dhiman (GlobalSign), Ben Wilson (Mozilla), Clint Wilson (Apple), Daryn Wright (Apple), Dustin Hollenback (Apple), Guillaume Amringer (Carillon Information Security Inc.), Hazhar Ismail (MSC Trustgate Sdn Bhd), Inaba Atsushi (GlobalSign), Jeff Ward (CPA Canada/WebTrust), Judith Spencer (CertiPath), Kiran Tummala (Microsoft), Luis Cervantes (SSL.com), Malcolm Idaho (IdenTrust), Marco Schambach (IdenTrust), Martijn Katerbarg (Sectigo), Nome Huang (TrustAsia), Ono Fumiaki (SECOM Trust Systems), Peter Miskovic (Disig), Rebecca Kelly (SSL.com), Renne Rodriguez (Apple), Sean Huang (TWCA), Stefan Selbitschka (rundQuadrat), Stephen Davidson (DigiCert), Tim Crawford (CPA Canada/WebTrust), Tim Huff (Microsoft), Wendy Brown (US Federal PKI Management Authority)

Latest releases
Server Certificate Requirements
SC092: Sunset use of Precertificate Signing CAs - Nov 4, 2025

Code Signing Requirements
v3.8 - Aug 5, 2024

What’s Changed CSC-25: Import EV Guidelines to CS Baseline Requirements by @dzacharo in https://github.com/cabforum/code-signing/pull/38 Full Changelog: https://github.com/cabforum/code-signing/compare/v3.7...v3.8

S/MIME Requirements
v1.0.12 - Ballot SMC014 - Oct 13, 2025

This ballot introduces requirements that a Certificate Issuer MUST deploy DNSSEC validation back to the IANA DNSSEC root trust anchor on all DNS queries associated with CAA record lookups performed by the Primary Network Perspective, effective March 15, 2026. The ballot is intended to maintain consistency in the S/MIME Baseline Requirements with the requirements of Ballot SC-085 which implemented identical requirements in the TLS Baseline Requirements. Note: SC-085 also introduced requirements in TLS Baseline Requirements for the use of DNSSEC in domain control validation. These requirements are automatically adopted in the S/MIME BR by the email domain control methods that include a normative reference to section 3.2.2.4 of the TLS Baseline Requirements. The draft also includes minor corrections to web links in the text. This ballot is proposed by Stephen Davidson (DigiCert) and endorsed by Client Wilson (Apple) and Ashish Dhiman (GlobalSign).

Network and Certificate System Security Requirements
Version 2.0.5 (Ballot NS-008) - Jul 9, 2025

Edit this page
The Certification Authority Browser Forum (CA/Browser Forum) is a voluntary gathering of Certificate Issuers and suppliers of Internet browser software and other applications that use certificates (Certificate Consumers).