Sounds great.
I just made a note. I do not call for any change.
Stefan Santesson
On 2019-05-30, 20:40, "Tim Hollebeek" <tim.hollebeek@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just to make it official, I'm the chair of the Validation Subcommittee of the
Server Certificate Working Group of the CA/Browser Forum, and I intend to
submit a ballot to make RFC 6844bis mandatory in the event it is published as
an IETF RFC.
-Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 2:30 PM
> To: Stefan Santesson <stefan@xxxxxxxxxxx>; secdir@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: spasm@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis.all@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis-06
>
> On 5/29/19 5:37 PM, Stefan Santesson via Datatracker wrote:
> > A common aspect of standards documents is that they only are relevant
> > to those who declare compliance to the standard. This document is
> > different as it relies on that all parties (CA:s) are aware of this
> > standard and performs the stipulated checks.
>
> In practice this has been stipulated for public CAs by the CA/Browser Forum
> Baseline Requirements since September 2017:
> https://cabforum.org/2017/03/08/ballot-187-make-caa-checking-mandatory/.
>
> In other words, the CP for this particular community of trust incorporates
> RFC
> 6844, making it mandatory. The intent is that once RFC6844bis is
> standardized,
> CA/Browser Forum will have a followup ballot incorporating it.
