CA/Browser Forum posts
Posts by tag Server Certificates
Ballot 119 – Remove “OfIncorporation” from OID descriptions in EVG 9.2.5(passed)
March 24, 2014 by Ben WilsonBallot 119 – Remove “OfIncorporation” from OID descriptions in EVG 9.2.5 Yea: ANF, Certinomis, Comodo, DigiCert, GlobalSign, Izenpe, Logius PKIoverheid, OpenTrust, QuoVadis, SECOM Trust, SSC, StartCom, Symantec, Trend Micro, Trustis, WoSign, Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla. Nay: None Abstain: None Result: Ballot passed Rob Stradling of Comodo made the following motion, and Ben Wilson from DigiCert and Chema López González from AC Firmaprofesional S.A. have endorsed it. The EV Guidelines require certificates to include the jurisdiction where the Subject has registered or incorporated. Subsection 9.2.5 of the EV Guidelines is titled, “Subject Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Registration Field”. However, the OID names provided in that section use the string “OfIncorporation”, which is overly specific and might be considered misleading, because not all business entities with EV certificates are corporations. Therefore, the string “OfIncorporation” should be deleted from these OID names.
March 24, 2014 by Ben WilsonBallot 119 – Remove “OfIncorporation” from OID descriptions in EVG 9.2.5 Yea: ANF, Certinomis, Comodo, DigiCert, GlobalSign, Izenpe, Logius PKIoverheid, OpenTrust, QuoVadis, SECOM Trust, SSC, StartCom, Symantec, Trend Micro, Trustis, WoSign, Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla. Nay: None Abstain: None Result: Ballot passed Rob Stradling of Comodo made the following motion, and Ben Wilson from DigiCert and Chema López González from AC Firmaprofesional S.A. have endorsed it. The EV Guidelines require certificates to include the jurisdiction where the Subject has registered or incorporated. Subsection 9.2.5 of the EV Guidelines is titled, “Subject Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Registration Field”. However, the OID names provided in that section use the string “OfIncorporation”, which is overly specific and might be considered misleading, because not all business entities with EV certificates are corporations. Therefore, the string “OfIncorporation” should be deleted from these OID names.
Ballot 114 – Improvements to the EV Definitions(passed)
January 28, 2014 by Ben WilsonVoting on Ballot 114 closed on 28 January 2014 with votes cast as follows: Yes: ANF, Buypass, CERTUM, Comodo, DigiCert, GlobalSign, Logius PKIoverheid, QuoVadis, Symantec, Trend Micro, Trustis, TURKTRUST and Mozilla. No: None. Abstain: None. Result: Ballot passes Cecilia Kam from Symantec made the following motion, and Jeremy Rowley from DigiCert and Kirk Hall from Trend Micro endorsed it. This proposal clarifies the definition of Business Entities, Private Organizations, and Incorporating Agencies. The change to Business Entity fixes the omission of non-commercial entities and clarifies that the examples are not all-encompassing. The Private Organization change helps promote EV in countries where they don’t generally use the term “Incorporating Agency”. The change in Incorporating Agency gives the guidelines a more international focus by using the term formation over incorporation and by acknowledging that businesses are generally registered, not established, with a filing.
January 28, 2014 by Ben WilsonVoting on Ballot 114 closed on 28 January 2014 with votes cast as follows: Yes: ANF, Buypass, CERTUM, Comodo, DigiCert, GlobalSign, Logius PKIoverheid, QuoVadis, Symantec, Trend Micro, Trustis, TURKTRUST and Mozilla. No: None. Abstain: None. Result: Ballot passes Cecilia Kam from Symantec made the following motion, and Jeremy Rowley from DigiCert and Kirk Hall from Trend Micro endorsed it. This proposal clarifies the definition of Business Entities, Private Organizations, and Incorporating Agencies. The change to Business Entity fixes the omission of non-commercial entities and clarifies that the examples are not all-encompassing. The Private Organization change helps promote EV in countries where they don’t generally use the term “Incorporating Agency”. The change in Incorporating Agency gives the guidelines a more international focus by using the term formation over incorporation and by acknowledging that businesses are generally registered, not established, with a filing.
Ballot 89 – Publish Recommendations for the Processing of EV SSL Certificates v.2(passes)
January 17, 2014 by Ben WilsonVoting on Ballot 89 closed. Ten voted in favor – Buypass, Comodo, D-TRUST, DigiCert, GoDaddy, Izenpe, SSC, Symantec, Trend Micro, and Opera. Mozilla abstained. There were none opposed. Therefore, Ballot 89 passes. Motion Rick Andrews made the following motion, and Ben Wilson and Kirk Hall endorsed it:
January 17, 2014 by Ben WilsonVoting on Ballot 89 closed. Ten voted in favor – Buypass, Comodo, D-TRUST, DigiCert, GoDaddy, Izenpe, SSC, Symantec, Trend Micro, and Opera. Mozilla abstained. There were none opposed. Therefore, Ballot 89 passes. Motion Rick Andrews made the following motion, and Ben Wilson and Kirk Hall endorsed it:
Ballot 113 – Revision to QIIS in EV Guidelines(passes)
January 13, 2014 by Ben WilsonBallot 113 – Revision to QIIS in EV Guidelines Voting ended on 13 January 2014. Quorum was 6 and 21 votes were cast-20 by CAs and 1 by Browsers. Twenty votes were in favor of the amendment. Izenpe abstained. Therefore, the ballot passes.
January 13, 2014 by Ben WilsonBallot 113 – Revision to QIIS in EV Guidelines Voting ended on 13 January 2014. Quorum was 6 and 21 votes were cast-20 by CAs and 1 by Browsers. Twenty votes were in favor of the amendment. Izenpe abstained. Therefore, the ballot passes.
Ballot 111 – Accelerate Max Certificate Lifetime Reduction Timetable
December 4, 2013 by Ben WilsonBallot 111 – Accelerate Max Certificate Lifetime Reduction Timetable Gervase Markham (Mozilla) made the following motion, endorsed by Eddy Nigg from StartCom and Ryan Hurst from Globalsign:
December 4, 2013 by Ben WilsonBallot 111 – Accelerate Max Certificate Lifetime Reduction Timetable Gervase Markham (Mozilla) made the following motion, endorsed by Eddy Nigg from StartCom and Ryan Hurst from Globalsign:
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:
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: