CA/Browser Forum posts
Posts by tag Minutes
2015-06-11 Minutes
June 11, 2015 by Ben WilsonMinutes of Teleconference – 11 June 2015 Read Antitrust Statement. The Statement was read.
June 11, 2015 by Ben WilsonMinutes of Teleconference – 11 June 2015 Read Antitrust Statement. The Statement was read.
2015-05-28 Minutes
May 28, 2015 by Ben WilsonCA/Browser Forum Minutes of May 28, 2015 Attendees: Atsushi Inaba, Atilla Biler, Ben Wilson, Billy VanCannon, Bruce Morton, Connie Enke, Dean Coclin, Doug Beattie, Gerv Markham, Jeremy Rowley, Jody Cloutier, Kubra Zaray, Mads Henriksveen, Mat Caughron, Patrick Tronnier, Peter Miscovic, Rick Andrews, Robin Alden, Ryan Sleevi, Sissel Hoel, Tim Hollebeek, Tim Shirley, Volkan Nergiz, Wayne Thayer Minutes of 14 May meeting were approved. These will be posted to the public list.
May 28, 2015 by Ben WilsonCA/Browser Forum Minutes of May 28, 2015 Attendees: Atsushi Inaba, Atilla Biler, Ben Wilson, Billy VanCannon, Bruce Morton, Connie Enke, Dean Coclin, Doug Beattie, Gerv Markham, Jeremy Rowley, Jody Cloutier, Kubra Zaray, Mads Henriksveen, Mat Caughron, Patrick Tronnier, Peter Miscovic, Rick Andrews, Robin Alden, Ryan Sleevi, Sissel Hoel, Tim Hollebeek, Tim Shirley, Volkan Nergiz, Wayne Thayer Minutes of 14 May meeting were approved. These will be posted to the public list.
2015-05-14 Minutes
May 14, 2015 by Ben WilsonMinutes May 14, 2015 Attendees: Dean Coclin, Ben Wilson, Doug Beattie, Gerv Markham, Atsushi Inaba, Kirk Hall, Atilla Biler, Bruce Morton, Burak Kalkan, Cecilia Kam, Davut Tokgoz, Volkan Nergiz, Rick Andrews, Moudrick Dadashov, Eddy Nigg, Mat Caughron, Tim Hollebeek, Patrick Tronnier, Billy VanCannon, Jeremy Rowley, Robin Alden, Ryan Sleevi Minutes of 30 April meeting were approved. These will be posted to the public list. Ballots: Ballot 149 (Bylaw updates from Kirk): Kirk wants to hold the ballot until the WebTrust audit team determines what the new name of the audit will be. Domain Validation Ballot*: There are a few open issues on this ballot:Working on revising #10 from the list. Some folks were concerned with the “test cert” provision. Tim H said the test cert should be allowed and that #10 needs to be tightened up. A longer discussion in the working group is warranted. Kirk also said it needs more details to make it more like methods 6-9 (which are explicit). Ryan also agreed. Jeremy said he put Doug’s proposed method in the proposal for now. The “random value” was 128 bits but Kirk wanted it back to 112 bits. Kirk said that 128 bits was overkill. The random value is provided by the CA to applicants so it’s not practically predictable by hackers. Kirk felt the lower value is adequate (and is commonly used for some other purpose). Ryan disagreed and said there were threats like reversible random number generators and things like passive observation which may allow for reconstruction of the RNG. He would like to see the standard to be 128 bits. Tim said he also had these concerns but after looking into Java Secure random generator (which apparently doesn’t do 128 bits) he felt it was cryptographically secure and is no longer concerned. Gerv said the cryptographic strength of the generator is more important than the bit size but feared that specifying a smaller key size would lead people to use a less secure RNG. Kirk challenged the security issue. Ryan further explained (and said we should err on the side of caution) that a network based adversary could observe traffic sent to a CA’s customer and (theoretically) predict a random number challenge sent to a future customer and cause a miss-issuance which is not the CA’s fault. Gerv suggested a compromise of specifying a cryptographically strong random number generator (with a lower key size) instead of specifying a higher key size (which would include the Java generator but not the Windows GUID generator). Doug said an adversary could submit an order and get a random string back w/o monitoring the network (Ryan’s example threat). Ryan said it depends on the type of cert (OV/EV vs DV). Rick said how would an auditor determine if a RNG is cryptographically secure. Ryan said in theory they should but in reality, recent reports and events prove they probably don’t. But he said it could be an auditable requirement. Tim H. said that in the financial industry, this type of thing gets audited all the time. Kirk said this is not the place we should be focusing this type of effort. Ryan asked what harm a requirement for 128 bits would cause. Kirk said what CAs are using today may not meet that requirement and it would be a wasted effort to get people to switch for no real benefit. Ryan said there are already requirements for cryptographically strong random number generators but Kirk said for this issue, it wasn’t that important. Discussion was terminated due to time constraints.
May 14, 2015 by Ben WilsonMinutes May 14, 2015 Attendees: Dean Coclin, Ben Wilson, Doug Beattie, Gerv Markham, Atsushi Inaba, Kirk Hall, Atilla Biler, Bruce Morton, Burak Kalkan, Cecilia Kam, Davut Tokgoz, Volkan Nergiz, Rick Andrews, Moudrick Dadashov, Eddy Nigg, Mat Caughron, Tim Hollebeek, Patrick Tronnier, Billy VanCannon, Jeremy Rowley, Robin Alden, Ryan Sleevi Minutes of 30 April meeting were approved. These will be posted to the public list. Ballots: Ballot 149 (Bylaw updates from Kirk): Kirk wants to hold the ballot until the WebTrust audit team determines what the new name of the audit will be. Domain Validation Ballot*: There are a few open issues on this ballot:Working on revising #10 from the list. Some folks were concerned with the “test cert” provision. Tim H said the test cert should be allowed and that #10 needs to be tightened up. A longer discussion in the working group is warranted. Kirk also said it needs more details to make it more like methods 6-9 (which are explicit). Ryan also agreed. Jeremy said he put Doug’s proposed method in the proposal for now. The “random value” was 128 bits but Kirk wanted it back to 112 bits. Kirk said that 128 bits was overkill. The random value is provided by the CA to applicants so it’s not practically predictable by hackers. Kirk felt the lower value is adequate (and is commonly used for some other purpose). Ryan disagreed and said there were threats like reversible random number generators and things like passive observation which may allow for reconstruction of the RNG. He would like to see the standard to be 128 bits. Tim said he also had these concerns but after looking into Java Secure random generator (which apparently doesn’t do 128 bits) he felt it was cryptographically secure and is no longer concerned. Gerv said the cryptographic strength of the generator is more important than the bit size but feared that specifying a smaller key size would lead people to use a less secure RNG. Kirk challenged the security issue. Ryan further explained (and said we should err on the side of caution) that a network based adversary could observe traffic sent to a CA’s customer and (theoretically) predict a random number challenge sent to a future customer and cause a miss-issuance which is not the CA’s fault. Gerv suggested a compromise of specifying a cryptographically strong random number generator (with a lower key size) instead of specifying a higher key size (which would include the Java generator but not the Windows GUID generator). Doug said an adversary could submit an order and get a random string back w/o monitoring the network (Ryan’s example threat). Ryan said it depends on the type of cert (OV/EV vs DV). Rick said how would an auditor determine if a RNG is cryptographically secure. Ryan said in theory they should but in reality, recent reports and events prove they probably don’t. But he said it could be an auditable requirement. Tim H. said that in the financial industry, this type of thing gets audited all the time. Kirk said this is not the place we should be focusing this type of effort. Ryan asked what harm a requirement for 128 bits would cause. Kirk said what CAs are using today may not meet that requirement and it would be a wasted effort to get people to switch for no real benefit. Ryan said there are already requirements for cryptographically strong random number generators but Kirk said for this issue, it wasn’t that important. Discussion was terminated due to time constraints.
2015-04-30 Minutes
April 30, 2015 by Ben WilsonAttendees: Dean Coclin, Ben Wilson, Doug Beattie, Gerv Markham, Atsushi Inaba, Kirk Hall, Volkan Nergiz, Rick Andrews, Moudrick Dadashov, Kubra Zeray, Eddy Nigg, Wayne Thayer, Mads Henriksveen, Sissel Hoel, Tim Hollebeek, Billy VanCannon, Jeremy Rowley, Tim Shirley, Peter Miskovic, Robin Alden, Ryan Sleevi Minutes of 16 April meeting were approved. These will be posted to the public list. Ballot 146 (Conversion of BRs): Ballot passed. Ballot 149 (Bylaw updates from Kirk): This ballot adds a WebTrust BR requirement for CAs and also requests that applicants provide an example URL of a site that uses their cert (among some minor procedural changes). Ryan said the ballot changes the WebTrust for CAs to Baseline Requirements which is a concern for Google. The BR audit is currently reflected in the requirements of root stores, membership of which is required for CA/B Forum admission. Ryan said that this new requirement significantly narrows membership to a work product of the forum. Kirk couldn’t understand why any CA would want to join the forum if they didn’t follow the BRs. Ryan said this was irrelevant to the topic and said the primary concern was that the public would have to be subject to rules which the public had no input on. Kirk countered that we require WebTrust for CAs which is in the same category (i.e. no public input). Ryan said this was not a work product of the forum. Gerv gave a scenario whereby some CA may have a problem with the BRs and would like to join to help correct the problem but would be prohibited under Kirk’s proposal. Gerv continued to say that membership in the forum shouldn’t be subject to a forum work product as it gives incumbent members some advantage. Kirk said such an example was not realistic. Gerv said that membership in the CA/B Forum isn’t equivalent to that or root programs. Eddy said before BR guidelines were effective, there was never a requirement to comply with the EV guidelines, as an example. Hence making a requirement to comply with BRs doesn’t make sense. Dean said that if this was the only potential “issue” in the ballot and if the ballot doesn’t pass, we may “decouple” the other issues and propose a separate ballot for those. Both Gerv and Ryan didn’t express concerns on the other parts of the ballot.
April 30, 2015 by Ben WilsonAttendees: Dean Coclin, Ben Wilson, Doug Beattie, Gerv Markham, Atsushi Inaba, Kirk Hall, Volkan Nergiz, Rick Andrews, Moudrick Dadashov, Kubra Zeray, Eddy Nigg, Wayne Thayer, Mads Henriksveen, Sissel Hoel, Tim Hollebeek, Billy VanCannon, Jeremy Rowley, Tim Shirley, Peter Miskovic, Robin Alden, Ryan Sleevi Minutes of 16 April meeting were approved. These will be posted to the public list. Ballot 146 (Conversion of BRs): Ballot passed. Ballot 149 (Bylaw updates from Kirk): This ballot adds a WebTrust BR requirement for CAs and also requests that applicants provide an example URL of a site that uses their cert (among some minor procedural changes). Ryan said the ballot changes the WebTrust for CAs to Baseline Requirements which is a concern for Google. The BR audit is currently reflected in the requirements of root stores, membership of which is required for CA/B Forum admission. Ryan said that this new requirement significantly narrows membership to a work product of the forum. Kirk couldn’t understand why any CA would want to join the forum if they didn’t follow the BRs. Ryan said this was irrelevant to the topic and said the primary concern was that the public would have to be subject to rules which the public had no input on. Kirk countered that we require WebTrust for CAs which is in the same category (i.e. no public input). Ryan said this was not a work product of the forum. Gerv gave a scenario whereby some CA may have a problem with the BRs and would like to join to help correct the problem but would be prohibited under Kirk’s proposal. Gerv continued to say that membership in the forum shouldn’t be subject to a forum work product as it gives incumbent members some advantage. Kirk said such an example was not realistic. Gerv said that membership in the CA/B Forum isn’t equivalent to that or root programs. Eddy said before BR guidelines were effective, there was never a requirement to comply with the EV guidelines, as an example. Hence making a requirement to comply with BRs doesn’t make sense. Dean said that if this was the only potential “issue” in the ballot and if the ballot doesn’t pass, we may “decouple” the other issues and propose a separate ballot for those. Both Gerv and Ryan didn’t express concerns on the other parts of the ballot.
2015-04-16 Minutes
April 16, 2015 by Ben WilsonCA/Browser Forum Minutes Apr. 16, 2015 Attendees: Dean Coclin, Bruce Morton, Atsushi Inaba, Doug Beattie, Kirk Hall, Gerv Markham, Jennifer Stanford, Ben Wilson, Atilla Biler, Volkan Nergiz, Wayne Thayer, Tim Shirley, Robin Alden, Patrick Tronnier, Mads Henriksveen, Ryan Sleevi, Burak Kalkan, Tim Hollebeek, Jody Cloutier, Eddy Nigg, Stephen Davidson, Jeremy Rowley Minutes of 2 April meeting were approved. These will be posted to the public list. Minutes of Cupertino face to face meeting also approved and will be posted. Ballot 146 (Conversion of BRs): Voting closing today. Appears it will pass. Kirk may submit ballot on bylaw changes shortly.
April 16, 2015 by Ben WilsonCA/Browser Forum Minutes Apr. 16, 2015 Attendees: Dean Coclin, Bruce Morton, Atsushi Inaba, Doug Beattie, Kirk Hall, Gerv Markham, Jennifer Stanford, Ben Wilson, Atilla Biler, Volkan Nergiz, Wayne Thayer, Tim Shirley, Robin Alden, Patrick Tronnier, Mads Henriksveen, Ryan Sleevi, Burak Kalkan, Tim Hollebeek, Jody Cloutier, Eddy Nigg, Stephen Davidson, Jeremy Rowley Minutes of 2 April meeting were approved. These will be posted to the public list. Minutes of Cupertino face to face meeting also approved and will be posted. Ballot 146 (Conversion of BRs): Voting closing today. Appears it will pass. Kirk may submit ballot on bylaw changes shortly.
2015-04-02 Minutes
April 2, 2015 by Ben WilsonMinutes of CA-Browser Forum Meeting – 2 April 2015 Attendees: Atsushi Inaba (Globalsign), Ben Wilson (Digicert), Bruce Morton (Entrust), Burak Kalkan (TurkTrust), Davut Tokgöz (e-Tugra), Doug Beattie (Globalsign), Eddy Nigg (Startcom), Gervase Markham (Mozilla), Jeremy Rowley (Digicert), Kirk Hall (Trend Micro), Moudrick Dadashov (SSC), Patrick Tronnier (OATI), Rick Andrews (Symantec), Ryan Sleevi (Google), Wayne Thayer (GoDaddy).
April 2, 2015 by Ben WilsonMinutes of CA-Browser Forum Meeting – 2 April 2015 Attendees: Atsushi Inaba (Globalsign), Ben Wilson (Digicert), Bruce Morton (Entrust), Burak Kalkan (TurkTrust), Davut Tokgöz (e-Tugra), Doug Beattie (Globalsign), Eddy Nigg (Startcom), Gervase Markham (Mozilla), Jeremy Rowley (Digicert), Kirk Hall (Trend Micro), Moudrick Dadashov (SSC), Patrick Tronnier (OATI), Rick Andrews (Symantec), Ryan Sleevi (Google), Wayne Thayer (GoDaddy).
2015-03-19 Minutes
March 19, 2015 by Ben WilsonMinutes of March 19th CA/B Forum Meeting Attendees: Dean Coclin (Symantec), Tyler Myers (GoDaddy), Tim Shirley (Trustwave), Doug Beattie (GlobalSign), Patrick Tronnier (OATI), Kirk Hall (Trend Micro), Ben Wilson (DigiCert), Robin Alden (Comodo), Mads Henriksveen (BuyPass), Billy VanCannon (Trustwave), Tim Hollebeek (Trustwave), Atilla Biler (TurkTrust), Volkan Nergiz (TurkTrust), Eddy Nigg (Startcom), Jeremy Rowley (DigiCert), Atsushi Inaba (GlobalSign), Wayne Thayer (GoDaddy), Burak Kalkan (TurkTrust), Tyrone Welsh (Trustis), Ryan Sleevi (Google), Mat Caughron (Apple).
March 19, 2015 by Ben WilsonMinutes of March 19th CA/B Forum Meeting Attendees: Dean Coclin (Symantec), Tyler Myers (GoDaddy), Tim Shirley (Trustwave), Doug Beattie (GlobalSign), Patrick Tronnier (OATI), Kirk Hall (Trend Micro), Ben Wilson (DigiCert), Robin Alden (Comodo), Mads Henriksveen (BuyPass), Billy VanCannon (Trustwave), Tim Hollebeek (Trustwave), Atilla Biler (TurkTrust), Volkan Nergiz (TurkTrust), Eddy Nigg (Startcom), Jeremy Rowley (DigiCert), Atsushi Inaba (GlobalSign), Wayne Thayer (GoDaddy), Burak Kalkan (TurkTrust), Tyrone Welsh (Trustis), Ryan Sleevi (Google), Mat Caughron (Apple).
Minutes of the F2F 34 Meeting in Cupertino, California, 10-12 March 2015
March 11, 2015 by Ben WilsonMeeting 34 Minutes Attending at various times over 3 days: Dean Coclin (Symantec), Kirk Hall (Trend Micro), Wayne Thayer (GoDaddy), Robin Alden (Comodo), Michael Whittam (Comodo), Arno Fiedler (representing ETSI), Iñigo Barreira (IZENPE), Rashmi Tabada (Symantec), Tim Hollebeek (Trustwave), Li-Chun Chen (Chunghwa Telecom), Doug Beattie (Globalsign), Atsushi Inaba (Globalsign), Robert Ikeoka (E&Y), Ryan Sleevi (Google), Billy VanCannon (Trustwave), Bruce Morton (Entrust), Gervase Markham (Mozilla), Richard Barnes (Mozilla), Moudrick Dadashov (SSC), Cecilia Kam (Symantec), Jeremy Rowley (Digicert), Ben Wilson (Digicert), Rick Andrews (Symantec), Stephen Davidson (QuoVadis), Richard Wang (WoSign), Mat Caughron (Apple), John Wilander (Apple), Don Sheehy (representing WebTrust), Jeff Ward (representing WebTrust), Kathleen Wilson (Mozilla), Stephen Hillier (Trend Micro), Chris Bailey (Trend Micro), John Noll (Apple), Gigi Wang (Apple), Curt Spann (Apple), Anoosh Saboori (Microsoft), Deron O’Brien (Apple)
March 11, 2015 by Ben WilsonMeeting 34 Minutes Attending at various times over 3 days: Dean Coclin (Symantec), Kirk Hall (Trend Micro), Wayne Thayer (GoDaddy), Robin Alden (Comodo), Michael Whittam (Comodo), Arno Fiedler (representing ETSI), Iñigo Barreira (IZENPE), Rashmi Tabada (Symantec), Tim Hollebeek (Trustwave), Li-Chun Chen (Chunghwa Telecom), Doug Beattie (Globalsign), Atsushi Inaba (Globalsign), Robert Ikeoka (E&Y), Ryan Sleevi (Google), Billy VanCannon (Trustwave), Bruce Morton (Entrust), Gervase Markham (Mozilla), Richard Barnes (Mozilla), Moudrick Dadashov (SSC), Cecilia Kam (Symantec), Jeremy Rowley (Digicert), Ben Wilson (Digicert), Rick Andrews (Symantec), Stephen Davidson (QuoVadis), Richard Wang (WoSign), Mat Caughron (Apple), John Wilander (Apple), Don Sheehy (representing WebTrust), Jeff Ward (representing WebTrust), Kathleen Wilson (Mozilla), Stephen Hillier (Trend Micro), Chris Bailey (Trend Micro), John Noll (Apple), Gigi Wang (Apple), Curt Spann (Apple), Anoosh Saboori (Microsoft), Deron O’Brien (Apple)
2015-03-05 Minutes
March 5, 2015 by Ben WilsonMinutes of March 5, 2015 Attendees: Dean Coclin (Symantec), Doug Beattie (GlobalSign), Kirk Hall (Trend Micro), Bruce Morton (Entrust), Rick Andrews (Symantec), Ben Wilson (DigiCert), Robin Alden (Comodo), Mads Henriksveen (BuyPass), Billy VanCannon (Trustwave), Chris (didn’t catch last name) (Trustwave), Tim Hollebeek (Trustwave), Cornelia Enke (SwissSign), Atilla Biler (TurkTrust), Gerv Markham (Mozilla), Jeremy Rowley (DigiCert), Atsushi Inaba (GlobalSign), Kubra Zeray (TurkTrust), Burak Kalkan (TurkTrust), Cecilia Kam (Symantec), Jody Cloutier (Microsoft), Anoosh Saboori (Microsoft), Ryan Sleevi (Google)
March 5, 2015 by Ben WilsonMinutes of March 5, 2015 Attendees: Dean Coclin (Symantec), Doug Beattie (GlobalSign), Kirk Hall (Trend Micro), Bruce Morton (Entrust), Rick Andrews (Symantec), Ben Wilson (DigiCert), Robin Alden (Comodo), Mads Henriksveen (BuyPass), Billy VanCannon (Trustwave), Chris (didn’t catch last name) (Trustwave), Tim Hollebeek (Trustwave), Cornelia Enke (SwissSign), Atilla Biler (TurkTrust), Gerv Markham (Mozilla), Jeremy Rowley (DigiCert), Atsushi Inaba (GlobalSign), Kubra Zeray (TurkTrust), Burak Kalkan (TurkTrust), Cecilia Kam (Symantec), Jody Cloutier (Microsoft), Anoosh Saboori (Microsoft), Ryan Sleevi (Google)
2015-02-19 Minutes
February 19, 2015 by Ben WilsonAttendees: Dean Coclin (Symantec), Doug Beattie (GlobalSign), Kirk Hall (Trend Micro), Bruce Morton (Entrust), Rick Andrews (Symantec), Ben Wilson (DigiCert), Eddy Nigg (Startcom), Volkan Nergiz (TurkTrust), Robin Alden (Comodo), Mads Henriksveen (BuyPass), Tim Shirley (Trustwave), Wayne Thayer (GoDaddy), Cornelia Enke (SwissSign), Atilla Biler (TurkTrust), Gerv Markham (Mozilla), Jeremy Rowley (DigiCert), Atsushi Inaba (GlobalSign), Sissel Hoel (BuyPass), Kubra Zeray (TurkTrust), Davut Tokgöz (E-Tugra), Cecilia Kam (Symantec). Antitrust Statement was read. Minutes of Feb 5th meeting were approved. Ben to post to website Ballot Status: Ballots 143 and 144 were approved. Ben will update the website to reflect the new working group name. Ballot 144 requires changes to the EV Guidelines which Jeremy will amend and update. There were a large number of abstentions on ballot 144. Jeremy said that many people may have used that to help the ballot meet quorum and that they didn’t have a strong interest in the ballot. IPv6: Ryan put out a draft ballot on this topic. Dean sent out the results of a survey of CASC members on this topic which Gerv said was very useful. Gerv said it would be good for the Internet for the Forum to support IPv6 and that the ballot provides a generous amount of time to do this. Jeremy said some CAs use a CDN and that may not support IPv6. Wayne updated the group stating that GoDaddy can now support it. Rick stated that for the sake of a complete argument, why not let market forces control this? Let people choose a CA that supports it if they want. Gerv said that doesn’t work because a user or third party doesn’t have that choice. Rick said most browsers don’t fail on OCSP failure so it’s not blocking anything. Membership Application of TrustCor Systems: The Forum received an application for membership from this entity. They have a WebTrust report from Princeton Audit Group which stated they are not actively issuing certificates yet. Dean sent the applicant a note asking for a site that uses one of their certs. He also sent a note to Don Sheehy about the auditor qualifications. Kirk asked if they have a BR audit which Dean will ask the applicant. Kirk suggested that if they don’t fully qualify, they could be granted observer status. Wayne asked if we should update the membership rules to require a BR audit. Jeremy agreed that this should be updated and that when we do a bylaw update, this should be undertaken. Wayne also said that everyone on the Management list is also on the Questions list. New Ballots: Operational Existence (145) and pre-ballot Domain Validation (146). Cecilia and Kirk said that the EV Working group proposed ballot 145 for Government entity purposes. Discussion period for 145 starts today. Ballot 146 is a proposal to eliminate the “any other method (7)” for domain validation. Jeremy said they are soliciting comments and should have a proposal ready by the face to face meeting. Kirk encouraged others to bring forward any other verification methods for domain validation. Jeremy said there is another ballot coming forward on using attorney opinion letters for legal existence. This should be out before the face to face meeting. Working group publicity: To date, the working group mailing lists have not been public. The bylaws state (in one place) that minutes and agendas of working groups should be made public and (in another place) that the lists should be managed in the same fashion as the public list. Gerv said that some working groups weren’t public because they were in existence before the bylaws. But we should make the archives publicly accessible. Wayne said we can publish the URL to subscribe to the list. Gerv said that when groups are re-chartered, we should create a new list to not violate anyone’s expectation of privacy from the old list. Regarding the new Validation Working Group, Gerv suggested we re-subscribe all the old members to the new list and state that it would be made public. It has to be clear that active participation is limited to those that have signed the IPR. EV WG update: Per #6 above. Code Signing update: Public draft of BR issued. Some comments received which the working group will address before the face to face meeting. Policy Review WG: A ballot will be proposed for the reconfiguration of the BRs to RFC 3647 format. Info Sharing WG: Hasn’t met in a while but needs to get back together soon. Members have had conflicts during the meeting time. Any other business: Kirk said we have 32 members coming to the F2F meeting. Send agenda items to Dean. Next meeting will be March 5th. Dean Coclin CA/B Forum Chair
February 19, 2015 by Ben WilsonAttendees: Dean Coclin (Symantec), Doug Beattie (GlobalSign), Kirk Hall (Trend Micro), Bruce Morton (Entrust), Rick Andrews (Symantec), Ben Wilson (DigiCert), Eddy Nigg (Startcom), Volkan Nergiz (TurkTrust), Robin Alden (Comodo), Mads Henriksveen (BuyPass), Tim Shirley (Trustwave), Wayne Thayer (GoDaddy), Cornelia Enke (SwissSign), Atilla Biler (TurkTrust), Gerv Markham (Mozilla), Jeremy Rowley (DigiCert), Atsushi Inaba (GlobalSign), Sissel Hoel (BuyPass), Kubra Zeray (TurkTrust), Davut Tokgöz (E-Tugra), Cecilia Kam (Symantec). Antitrust Statement was read. Minutes of Feb 5th meeting were approved. Ben to post to website Ballot Status: Ballots 143 and 144 were approved. Ben will update the website to reflect the new working group name. Ballot 144 requires changes to the EV Guidelines which Jeremy will amend and update. There were a large number of abstentions on ballot 144. Jeremy said that many people may have used that to help the ballot meet quorum and that they didn’t have a strong interest in the ballot. IPv6: Ryan put out a draft ballot on this topic. Dean sent out the results of a survey of CASC members on this topic which Gerv said was very useful. Gerv said it would be good for the Internet for the Forum to support IPv6 and that the ballot provides a generous amount of time to do this. Jeremy said some CAs use a CDN and that may not support IPv6. Wayne updated the group stating that GoDaddy can now support it. Rick stated that for the sake of a complete argument, why not let market forces control this? Let people choose a CA that supports it if they want. Gerv said that doesn’t work because a user or third party doesn’t have that choice. Rick said most browsers don’t fail on OCSP failure so it’s not blocking anything. Membership Application of TrustCor Systems: The Forum received an application for membership from this entity. They have a WebTrust report from Princeton Audit Group which stated they are not actively issuing certificates yet. Dean sent the applicant a note asking for a site that uses one of their certs. He also sent a note to Don Sheehy about the auditor qualifications. Kirk asked if they have a BR audit which Dean will ask the applicant. Kirk suggested that if they don’t fully qualify, they could be granted observer status. Wayne asked if we should update the membership rules to require a BR audit. Jeremy agreed that this should be updated and that when we do a bylaw update, this should be undertaken. Wayne also said that everyone on the Management list is also on the Questions list. New Ballots: Operational Existence (145) and pre-ballot Domain Validation (146). Cecilia and Kirk said that the EV Working group proposed ballot 145 for Government entity purposes. Discussion period for 145 starts today. Ballot 146 is a proposal to eliminate the “any other method (7)” for domain validation. Jeremy said they are soliciting comments and should have a proposal ready by the face to face meeting. Kirk encouraged others to bring forward any other verification methods for domain validation. Jeremy said there is another ballot coming forward on using attorney opinion letters for legal existence. This should be out before the face to face meeting. Working group publicity: To date, the working group mailing lists have not been public. The bylaws state (in one place) that minutes and agendas of working groups should be made public and (in another place) that the lists should be managed in the same fashion as the public list. Gerv said that some working groups weren’t public because they were in existence before the bylaws. But we should make the archives publicly accessible. Wayne said we can publish the URL to subscribe to the list. Gerv said that when groups are re-chartered, we should create a new list to not violate anyone’s expectation of privacy from the old list. Regarding the new Validation Working Group, Gerv suggested we re-subscribe all the old members to the new list and state that it would be made public. It has to be clear that active participation is limited to those that have signed the IPR. EV WG update: Per #6 above. Code Signing update: Public draft of BR issued. Some comments received which the working group will address before the face to face meeting. Policy Review WG: A ballot will be proposed for the reconfiguration of the BRs to RFC 3647 format. Info Sharing WG: Hasn’t met in a while but needs to get back together soon. Members have had conflicts during the meeting time. Any other business: Kirk said we have 32 members coming to the F2F meeting. Send agenda items to Dean. Next meeting will be March 5th. Dean Coclin CA/B Forum Chair