CA/Browser Forum
Home » All CA/Browser Forum Posts » 2026-04-09 Minutes of the Server Certificate Working Group

2026-04-09 Minutes of the Server Certificate Working Group

Minutes:

Meeting Logistics

  • Wayne Thayer leading the Meeting as Dimitris is not available.
  • Minute taker: Sandy Balzer
  • Wayne Thayer read the note-well.
  • No changes were requested for the agenda.
  • Minutes approval
  • February 26, 2026 - these Draft minutes have not been distributed yet
  • F2F#67 March 10, 2026 - Draft minutes have not been distributed yet, compilation pending. Participants reminded to upload missing notes and presentations to Etherpad / provide to chairs.
  • Final minutes do March 26, 2026 (Draft minutes were distributed on 2026-03-31) No objections and minutes approved.

Membership Applications

  • No Membership applications, one was received but it was not complete.

Ballots

In Discussion Period

  • SC098 Process RFC 8657 CAA Parameters

The ballot was in discussion and largely considered ready for voting. A comment was received about disambiguating the validation methods and concern for potential confusion, and Wayne pointed out that with a statement that says if a CA performs domain validation using a mechanism that can be represented by multiple labels, the CA should accept any of the labels as granting permission to issue.

Dimitris suggested that clarity could be improved by defining the ACME DNS-01 validation method as a BR validation method and proposed holding this ballot until a separate ballot encoding this ACME method in the BRs is completed.

Aaron Gable stated that the ambiguity is largely theoretical and unlikely to cause practical issues, noting that a CA would not accept the DNS-01 label unless it implements the ACME DNS-01 validation method. He cautioned that defining DNS-01 as a separate BR validation method could introduce overlapping validation methods and additional audit and logging complexity. He suggested adjusting the example language rather than adding a new BR validation method.

Wayne welcomed feedback and stated his opinion that defining DNS as a BR validation method is not necessary.

Corey Bonnell stated that ACME DNS-01 is a constrained profile of BR method 7 and expressed concern that ambiguity could lead to compliance incidents. He supported defining DNS-01 explicitly as a BR method for clarity.

Michael Slaughter agreed that the issue warranted further consideration and supported handling DNS-01 in a separate discussion to avoid unintended consequences.

Wayne summarized that he would update the example language as suggested, restart the discussion period, and proceed without further delay. Feedback was welcomed. Wayne stated his opinion that defining a BR method is not necessary.

  • SC099 Improve Recording of Validation Method

Aaron Gable reported that SC-99 remained in the discussion period. He noted significant comments from Ryan Hurst opposing the approach and a response supporting the ballot. No additional technical objections were raised during the meeting beyond the comments already noted.

Inigo Barreira raised a concern regarding the proposed July effective date, referencing informal summer timing considerations. Aaron stated he was unaware of any formal agreement on summer freezes and preferred not to restart the ballot based on unwritten conventions.

Trevoli Ponds-White stated that the ballot primarily clarified existing expectations and did not require significant code changes. She indicated she was open to moving the effective date if strong consensus emerged.

Wayne stated that members who felt strongly about changing the effective date should comment on the mailing list before the discussion period ended. Otherwise, the ballot would proceed.

Aaron noted that the discussion period for SC-99 was expected to conclude the following day, after which the ballot would be moved to the voting stage unless additional concerns were raised.

About informal or unwritten conventions (e.g. summer timing considerations), participants noted that these practices are not documented and that there is no formal consensus. It was suggested that such conventions should either be discussed at a future face-to-face meeting or formalized through a ballot and incorporated into the bylaws.

Cleared IPR review, new Guidelines

  • SC095 Clean-up 2025 (cleared IPR Review for the TLS BRs). BRs 2.2.6 were released

Wayne reported that the original IPR review covered only the TLS Baseline Requirements and did not include the EV Guidelines. The TLS BR portion has cleared IPR review and BR version 2.2.6 has been released. To correct this issue, a new IPR review period has been initiated for the EV Guidelines portion.

Draft / Under Consideration

  • SC087 Registration Number Improvement for EV Certificates (Corey)

On hold pending SC-95 IPR completion.

  • SC0XX Cleanup for ADN CNAME (Aaron)

Deferred due to time.

  • SC0XX Improve Certificate Problem Reports and Clarify the Meaning of Revocation (Martijn)

No Update.

  • SC0XX Update Revocation timeline for errors affecting CP/CPS deviations but in accordance with the BRs (Dimitris)

No Update.

  • SC0XX Modernize EVG Domain Ownership Reuse Requirement to Reference Section 3.2.2.7 (Dustin)

Draft in progress; removed from agenda until ready.

Any other business

Wayne Thayer asked for any other business and stated that the next Server Certificate Working Group call is scheduled for 23 April.

Wayne adjourned the Server Certificate Working Group meeting and handed the meeting over to Dean to continue with the CA/Browser Forum plenary session.

Attendees

Tadahiko ITO-SECOM, Wayne Thayer, Luis Cervantes (SSL.com), Luis Osses (Amazon Trust Services), Mahua Chaudhuri (Microsoft), Sandy Balzer - SwissSign, Michael Slaughter (Amazon Trust Services), Sean Huang (TWCA), Janet Hines - SSL.com, Rebecca Kelley - SSL, Karolina Ruszczynska - Certum, Greg Tomko (GlobalSign), Jozef Nigut - Disig, Sándor SZŐKE, dr. (Microsec), Enrico Entschew/ D-Trust, Ben Wilson - Mozilla, Adam Folsom, Dustin Hollenback, Kateryna Aleksieieva (Certum by Asseco), Tobias Josefowitz (Opera), Inigo Barreira, Jos Purvis (Fastly), Dean, Trevoli Ponds-White [Amazon Trust Services], wendy brown - FPKIMA, Stephen Davidson (DigiCert), Peter Miskovic - Disig, Scott Rea - eMudhra, Roman Fischer - SwissSign, Paul van Brouwershaven (Digitorus), [WISeKey] Jaime Hablutzel, Rich Smith (DigiCert), Aaron Gable (ISRG), Steven Deitte - GoDaddy, Lucy Buecking - IdenTrust, Nome Huang-TrustAsia, Chad Dandar, Atsushi INABA - GlobalSign, Hogeun Yoo - NAVER Cloud Trust Services, Clint Wilson, Corey Bonnell [DigiCert], ONO Fumiaki - SECOM Trust Systems, Nate Smith - GoDaddy, Jeff Ward (Aprio), Georgy Sebastian(AWS), Lilia Dubko, Cynetheia Brown(FPKIMA), Rollin Yu - TrustAsia, Alvin.Wang(SHECA), Antti Backman - Telia Company, Tim Callan (Sectigo), Chunghwa Telecom / Tsung-Min Kuo.

Latest releases
Server Certificate Requirements
SC099: Improve Recording of Validation Methods - May 19, 2026

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
v1.0.14 - Ballot SMC016 - May 5, 2026

This ballot maintains consistency between the S/MIME Baseline Requirements and the TLS Baseline Requirements with changes introduced by Ballots SC096 and SC097. Specifically, this ballot: Creates a carve-out of the logging requirements for DNSSEC specifically, stating these are not in scope. For audit purposes, change management logging is able to confirm if the appropriate controls are in effect or not. Sunsets all remaining use of SHA-1 signatures in Certificates and CRLs. It is noted that most uses of SHA-1 signatures are already deprecated by SC097. With this ballot, all unexpired Subordinate CA Certificates issuing S/MIME containing the SHA-1 signature algorithm must be revoked. This proposal does not prohibit the use of SHA-1 to generate issuerKeyHash or issuerNameHash values as currently required by RFC 5019. Includes minor formatting corrections.

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).