[Servercert-wg] [Voting Begins] Ballot SC-74 - Clarify CP/CPS structure according to RFC 3647

[Doug Beattie]

GlobalSign changes our vote to NO on Ballot SC-74.

 

We agree with DigiCert’s observations that this needs a little more work:

The ballot is insufficiently clear about whether punctuation, capitalization, etc have to match exactly, and RFC 3647, which is Informative and was never intended to be used this way, is inconsistent itself in its use of capitalization and punctuation.

 

There needs to be additional clarity about exactly what the requirements are if we want to do this.

 

Doug

 

From: Servercert-wg <servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org> On Behalf Of Doug Beattie via Servercert-wg
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 6:41 AM
To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [Servercert-wg] [Voting Begins] Ballot SC-74 - Clarify CP/CPS structure according to RFC 3647

 

GlobalSign votes yes on SC-74.

 

Doug

 

From: Servercert-wg <servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org> On Behalf Of Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Servercert-wg
Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2024 4:25 AM
To: CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
Subject: [Servercert-wg] [Voting Begins] Ballot SC-74 - Clarify CP/CPS structure according to RFC 3647

 

Voting begins for ballot SC-74.


SC-74 - Clarify CP/CPS structure according to RFC 3647


Summary


The TLS Baseline Requirements require in section 2.2 that:

"The Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement MUST be structured in accordance with RFC 3647 and MUST include all material required by RFC 3647."

The intent of this language was to ensure that all CAs' CP and/or CPS documents contain a similar structure, making it easier to review and compare against the BRs. However, there was some ambiguity as to the actual structure that CAs should follow. After several discussions in the SCWG Public Mailing List <https://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/2023-November/004070.html>  and F2F meetings, it was agreed that more clarity should be added to the existing requirement, pointing to the outline described in section 6 of RFC 3647.

The following motion has been proposed by Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) and endorsed by Aaron Poulsen (Amazon) and Tim Hollebeek (Digicert). 

You can view the github pull request representing this ballot here <https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/pull/503> . 


Motion Begins


MODIFY the "Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted TLS Server Certificates" based on Version 2.0.4 as specified in the following redline:

*	https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/c4a34fe2292022e0a04ba66b5a85df75907ac2a2...f6a90e2a652fbb7a2d62a976b70f4af3adce8dae 


Motion Ends


This ballot proposes a Final Maintenance Guideline. The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:


Discussion (at least 7 days)


*	Start time: 2024-04-25 16:30:00 UTC
*	End time: on or after 2024-05-02 16:30:00 UTC


Vote for approval (7 days)


*	Start time: 2024-05-05 8:30:00 UTC
*	End time: 2024-05-12 8:30:00 UTC

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20240509/80afaee6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 8445 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20240509/80afaee6/attachment-0001.p7s>