[cabfpub] Potential F2F Topics

Dean Coclin Dean_Coclin at symantec.com
Mon Oct 10 21:32:22 UTC 2016

Yes, there are open slots and I can add it. Assume you will lead the discussion.


-----Original Message-----
From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Rob Stradling via Public
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 5:30 PM
To: Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com>; CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Potential F2F Topics

Are there still any slots to fill?  I think it would be good to discuss the way forward (if indeed there is one!) for CT domain redaction.

On 01/10/16 17:00, Peter Bowen wrote:
> I haven’t seen much recent activity on topics for the F2F.  It looks like we still have most of the second day with placeholders to be filled in.
> I would like to suggest two topics:
> 1) Non-FIPS algorithms for customer public keys and certificate 
> signing
> The Baseline Requirements current primarily use the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) published by the United States National Institute of Standards and Technology as a reference for hash and digital signature algorithms.  A number of groups are doing work on new algorithms that are not likely to be memorialized in a FIPS or will take a very long time to do so.  These include EdDSA (including Ed25519 and Ed448) from Dan Bernstein and the IRTF/IETF, SM2 & SM3 from the China Office of State Commercial Cryptography Administration, GOST R 34.10-2012 from the Euroasian Interstate Council for Standardization, Metrology and Certification, and ECGDSA from Germany, and ECKCDSA from Korea.  Additionally there are “Post-Quantum” algorithms coming down the pipeline that will arrive at some future point.
> How do we want to handle these?  What requirements should be in place before we added these to the BRs and allow CAs start to utilize these?
> 2) Network and Certificate Systems Security Requirements
> The Network and Certificate Systems Security Requirements (NCSSR) were discussed at the last F2F but it was kind of dropped.  What challenges are CAs finding?  Are there places where they are not clear or where they can be interpreted to ban practices the Forum feels are appropriate?  As they are a separate document from the BRs, do trust store maintainers expect that all CAs (whether for SSL or not) are audited as meeting the requirements or do they only apply to “SSL” CAs?
> Ideally members would send data on their experiences ahead of time so we can have a productive discussion.

Rob Stradling
Senior Research & Development Scientist
COMODO - Creating Trust Online
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5723 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20161010/60edc25d/attachment-0001.p7s>

More information about the Public mailing list