CA/Browser Forum posts
Ballot 107 – Removing Version Numbers to WebTrust and ETSI Standards From CABF Guidelines
August 9, 2013 by Ben WilsonBallot 107 – Removing Version Numbers to WebTrust and ETSI Standards From CABF Guidelines (Withdrawn) Mads Henriksveen made the following motion, and Inigo Barreira from Izenpe and Kirk Hall from Trend Micro endorsed it: Motion Begins Baseline Requirements (BR)
August 9, 2013 by Ben WilsonBallot 107 – Removing Version Numbers to WebTrust and ETSI Standards From CABF Guidelines (Withdrawn) Mads Henriksveen made the following motion, and Inigo Barreira from Izenpe and Kirk Hall from Trend Micro endorsed it: Motion Begins Baseline Requirements (BR)
Ballot 108 – Defining the Scope of the Baseline Requirements
August 6, 2013 by Ben WilsonBallot 108 – Defining the Scope of the Baseline Requirements (Withdrawn) Motion Jeremy Rowley made the following motion, and Stephen Davidson and Geoff Keating endorsed it: Motion Begins Amend Section 1 of the Baseline Requirements as follows: The Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates describe a subset of the requirements that a Certification Authority must meet in order to issue Publicly Trusted Certificates. Except where explicitly stated otherwise, these requirements apply only to relevant events that occur on or after the Effective Date.
August 6, 2013 by Ben WilsonBallot 108 – Defining the Scope of the Baseline Requirements (Withdrawn) Motion Jeremy Rowley made the following motion, and Stephen Davidson and Geoff Keating endorsed it: Motion Begins Amend Section 1 of the Baseline Requirements as follows: The Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates describe a subset of the requirements that a Certification Authority must meet in order to issue Publicly Trusted Certificates. Except where explicitly stated otherwise, these requirements apply only to relevant events that occur on or after the Effective Date.
Ballot 106 – Extended Deadline to Prohibit OCSP “Good” Response for Non-Issued Certificates
August 6, 2013 by Ben WilsonBallot 106 – Extended Deadline to Prohibit OCSP “Good” Response for Non-Issued Certificates (Withdrawn) Motion Given that several CAs have notified the CA/Browser Forum that they will be unable to comply with the 1-August-2013 deadline by which OCSP responders MUST NOT respond with a “good” status for unissued certificates, and that a one-year extension of this deadline is an appropriate timeframe by which these CAs should be able to come into compliance;
August 6, 2013 by Ben WilsonBallot 106 – Extended Deadline to Prohibit OCSP “Good” Response for Non-Issued Certificates (Withdrawn) Motion Given that several CAs have notified the CA/Browser Forum that they will be unable to comply with the 1-August-2013 deadline by which OCSP responders MUST NOT respond with a “good” status for unissued certificates, and that a one-year extension of this deadline is an appropriate timeframe by which these CAs should be able to come into compliance;
Ballot 105 – Technical Constraints for Subordinate Certificate Authorities Yielding Broader and Safer PKI Adoption.
July 29, 2013 by Ben WilsonBallot 105 – Technical Constraints for Subordinate Certificate Authorities Yielding Broader and Safer PKI Adoption. (Passed) Motion Steve Roylance made the following motion, and Gervase Markham from Mozilla and Stephen Davidson from QuoVadis endorsed it: Motion Begins EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, this ballot provides clarity to the language covering external audits for Subordinate CAs, removing ambiguity as well as providing better alignment of the Baseline Requirements to the Mozilla CA Root program where the subject is already covered and accepted by the wider PKI community. In addition, the proposal sets out to aid wider and broader PKI adoption by Subordinate CAs by defining the use of Technical Constraints and highlighting how additional barriers to adoption within the guidelines can be optional when using Name Constraints, specifically the requirement for ‘OCSP Good’ responses originally proposed in Ballot 100. We propose amending the Baseline Requirements Guidelines as follows:
July 29, 2013 by Ben WilsonBallot 105 – Technical Constraints for Subordinate Certificate Authorities Yielding Broader and Safer PKI Adoption. (Passed) Motion Steve Roylance made the following motion, and Gervase Markham from Mozilla and Stephen Davidson from QuoVadis endorsed it: Motion Begins EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, this ballot provides clarity to the language covering external audits for Subordinate CAs, removing ambiguity as well as providing better alignment of the Baseline Requirements to the Mozilla CA Root program where the subject is already covered and accepted by the wider PKI community. In addition, the proposal sets out to aid wider and broader PKI adoption by Subordinate CAs by defining the use of Technical Constraints and highlighting how additional barriers to adoption within the guidelines can be optional when using Name Constraints, specifically the requirement for ‘OCSP Good’ responses originally proposed in Ballot 100. We propose amending the Baseline Requirements Guidelines as follows:
Notice of IPR Review Period for EV Amendments Made by Ballots 101 and 104
July 29, 2013 by Ben WilsonPursuant to Section 4.1 of the CA/Browser Forum’s IPR Policy, this is notice of the commencement of a 30-day IPR maintenance-guideline review period by which certain provisions of the IPR will become applicable to these recent changes made to the EV Guidelines (by Ballots 101 and 104). During this IPR review period you are to review these amendments and consider any licensing obligations with respect to any Essential Claims that may be encompassed by such amendments.
July 29, 2013 by Ben WilsonPursuant to Section 4.1 of the CA/Browser Forum’s IPR Policy, this is notice of the commencement of a 30-day IPR maintenance-guideline review period by which certain provisions of the IPR will become applicable to these recent changes made to the EV Guidelines (by Ballots 101 and 104). During this IPR review period you are to review these amendments and consider any licensing obligations with respect to any Essential Claims that may be encompassed by such amendments.
Notice of IPR Review Period for BR Amendments Made by Ballots 96, 97, 99, 102 and 105
July 29, 2013 by Ben WilsonThe following changes have been made to the Baseline Requirements since the last Notice of IPR Review Period: Ballot 96 amended sections 11.1.3 and 11.1.4 dealing with Wildcards and new gTLDs. Ballot 97 – Prevention of Unknown Certificate Contents – amended section 10.2.3 and Appendix B and also addressed RFC 5280. Ballot 99 added an allowance for DSA keys to Appendix B Ballot 102 amended section 9.2.3 concerning the use of domainComponents in certificates.
July 29, 2013 by Ben WilsonThe following changes have been made to the Baseline Requirements since the last Notice of IPR Review Period: Ballot 96 amended sections 11.1.3 and 11.1.4 dealing with Wildcards and new gTLDs. Ballot 97 – Prevention of Unknown Certificate Contents – amended section 10.2.3 and Appendix B and also addressed RFC 5280. Ballot 99 added an allowance for DSA keys to Appendix B Ballot 102 amended section 9.2.3 concerning the use of domainComponents in certificates.
2013-07-25 Minutes
July 25, 2013 by Ben WilsonNotes of meeting CAB Forum 25 July 2013 Version 1 Present: Rick Andrews, Kirk Hall, Atsushi Inaba, Ben Wilson, Eddy Nigg, Mads Henriksveen, Sissel Hoel, Dean Coclin, Jeremy Rowley, Ryan Sleevi, Robin Alden, Steve Roylance, Mert Ozarar, Atilla Biler Agenda review: Approved as published. Minutes: Minutes of July 11, 2013 were circulated on July 18, 2013 Ballots: Ballot 103- Ben will fix and recirculate; Ballot 104 – EVG v. 1.4.3 will be circulated; Ballot 105 – so far we have received 13 votes, 11 yes and two abstained. Three of the browser have voted yes. Ballot 106 there have been many comments. Do we want to discuss now? No, we’ll continue discussions on the list. Ballot 107 – Mads needs another endorser. Iñigo said he would endorse with a minor change. Ballot 89 – Rick said he had sent to Tom for review. He’ll follow up when Tom gets back from vacation, but he wants to put it to bed–either put out a new document or get rid of the old one on the web site. Ballot 108 – Jeremy noted that the current Baseline Requirements are not clear on when they apply. He suggests that SSL certificates be defined for purposes of the Baseline Requirements as certificates with the server authentication EKU. Ryan S. wants to ensure that the Baseline Requirements correctly address Intermediate CAs as well. Jeremy agreed and said he would add that in.
July 25, 2013 by Ben WilsonNotes of meeting CAB Forum 25 July 2013 Version 1 Present: Rick Andrews, Kirk Hall, Atsushi Inaba, Ben Wilson, Eddy Nigg, Mads Henriksveen, Sissel Hoel, Dean Coclin, Jeremy Rowley, Ryan Sleevi, Robin Alden, Steve Roylance, Mert Ozarar, Atilla Biler Agenda review: Approved as published. Minutes: Minutes of July 11, 2013 were circulated on July 18, 2013 Ballots: Ballot 103- Ben will fix and recirculate; Ballot 104 – EVG v. 1.4.3 will be circulated; Ballot 105 – so far we have received 13 votes, 11 yes and two abstained. Three of the browser have voted yes. Ballot 106 there have been many comments. Do we want to discuss now? No, we’ll continue discussions on the list. Ballot 107 – Mads needs another endorser. Iñigo said he would endorse with a minor change. Ballot 89 – Rick said he had sent to Tom for review. He’ll follow up when Tom gets back from vacation, but he wants to put it to bed–either put out a new document or get rid of the old one on the web site. Ballot 108 – Jeremy noted that the current Baseline Requirements are not clear on when they apply. He suggests that SSL certificates be defined for purposes of the Baseline Requirements as certificates with the server authentication EKU. Ryan S. wants to ensure that the Baseline Requirements correctly address Intermediate CAs as well. Jeremy agreed and said he would add that in.
2013-07-11 Minutes
July 11, 2013 by Ben WilsonNotes of meeting CAB Forum 11 July 2013 Present: Kirk Hall, Atsushi Inaba, Ben Wilson, Dean Coclin, Rick Andrews, Rich Smith, Eddy Nigg, Geoff Keating, Mads Henriksveen, Wayne Thayer, Jeremy Rowley, Steve Roylance, Gerv Markham, Mert Ozarar, Robin Alden, Phill Hallam Baker, Cornelia Enke Agenda review: The agenda was reviewed. Steve Roylance said he wanted time to discuss technical constraints. Jeremy Rowley said he wanted time to discuss what defines an SSL certificate covered by the Baseline Requirements and convening the working group on EV. Rick would like to see if there is any update on browser vendors using CAA. He said it seems like Google has already implemented it. He asked Geoff whether CAA testing was on the radar for Apple, and Geoff said it was.
July 11, 2013 by Ben WilsonNotes of meeting CAB Forum 11 July 2013 Present: Kirk Hall, Atsushi Inaba, Ben Wilson, Dean Coclin, Rick Andrews, Rich Smith, Eddy Nigg, Geoff Keating, Mads Henriksveen, Wayne Thayer, Jeremy Rowley, Steve Roylance, Gerv Markham, Mert Ozarar, Robin Alden, Phill Hallam Baker, Cornelia Enke Agenda review: The agenda was reviewed. Steve Roylance said he wanted time to discuss technical constraints. Jeremy Rowley said he wanted time to discuss what defines an SSL certificate covered by the Baseline Requirements and convening the working group on EV. Rick would like to see if there is any update on browser vendors using CAA. He said it seems like Google has already implemented it. He asked Geoff whether CAA testing was on the radar for Apple, and Geoff said it was.
Ballot 104 – EV Domain Validation
July 9, 2013 by Ben WilsonBallot 104 – Domain verification for EV Certificates (Passed) Motion Rich Smith of Comodo made the following motion, and Jeremy Rowley from DigiCert and Mads Henriksveen from Buypass endorsed it: Motion Begins EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, in order to reconcile the differences in domain verification specified in the Baseline Requirements and EV Guidelines, clarify language within the EV Guidelines about the right to use a domain name, and permit additional alternatives in verifying domain control or ownership, we propose amending the EV Guidelines as follows:
July 9, 2013 by Ben WilsonBallot 104 – Domain verification for EV Certificates (Passed) Motion Rich Smith of Comodo made the following motion, and Jeremy Rowley from DigiCert and Mads Henriksveen from Buypass endorsed it: Motion Begins EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, in order to reconcile the differences in domain verification specified in the Baseline Requirements and EV Guidelines, clarify language within the EV Guidelines about the right to use a domain name, and permit additional alternatives in verifying domain control or ownership, we propose amending the EV Guidelines as follows: