Greetings,
This email introduces discussion of another issue selected to be addressed in the next version of the Mozilla Root Store Policy (MSRP), version 2.8, to be published in 2022. (See https://github.com/mozilla/pkipolicy/labels/2.8)
The MRSP uses the terms “CP/CPS” and also “CP and CPS” and “CP
or CPS”.
According to RFC 3647 and X.509, a certificate policy (CP) is "a named set of rules that indicates the applicability of a certificate to a particular community and/or class of applications with common security requirements."
Also, according to RFC 3647, a certification practices statement (CPS) is a "more detailed
description of the practices followed by a CA in issuing and otherwise managing
certificates", and “also describe practices relating to all certificate lifecycle
services (e.g., issuance, management, revocation, and renewal or re-keying),”
and CPSes provide details concerning other business, legal, and technical
matters.
(Some CAs publish a combined CP-CPS.)
More often, the stated requirements are found in a CP, while a CPS describes how such requirements are met. Thus, a CA’s CPS is the more likely candidate, and preference or emphasis should be placed in the MRSP on the CPS as the location for a CA’s statements of how it meets Mozilla’s requirements.
Currently, MRSP section 3.3 states, “We rely on publicly disclosed documentation (e.g., in a Certificate Policy and Certification Practice Statement) to ascertain that our requirements are met.” MRSP section 3.3 goes on to say, “the publicly disclosed documentation [must] provide[] sufficient information for Mozilla to determine whether and how the CA complies with this policy, including a description of the steps taken by the CA to verify certificate requests;” (emphasis added).
Here is a first draft redline to address this Issue #227: https://github.com/BenWilson-Mozilla/pkipolicy/commit/a7b53420d5ab9edd347ff16dfdf4448dc4af9ed7
In a couple places in MRSP section 3.3, I replaced "CP/CPS" with "the documentation" since we're talking about "the publicly disclosed documentation".
For MRSP section 2.2, one approach would be to replace “CP/CPS” with “the CPS (or,
if applicable, the CP or CP/CPS)”. Or that phrase could even be re-written to say “the CPS (or, if applicable,
the CP or combined CP-CPS)” (the goal of this latter approach would be to replace "CP/CPS" in the MRSP).
Thoughts?
Thanks,
BenTo view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/61b944a1.1c69fb81.f84f3.05b4SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40mx.google.com.
1- Should item 2. be amended to read: "the publicly disclosed documentation MUST be available from the CA operator’s official website or saved as an attachment in Bugzilla" ? (Often, CA operators will upload documentation to Bugzilla.)
2 - Should item 3. be amended to read "the publicly disclosed documentation MUST be made available to Mozilla under one of the following Creative Commons licenses (or later versions): ..."? In other words, is the scope of "documentation" too broad? Should this be changed back to something more narrow like, "CPs, CPSes, and combined CP/CPSes MUST be made available ....")
3 - Should item 4. be amended to read "the CP and CPS, or the combined CP/CPS, MUST be reviewed and updated as necessary at least once every year, as required by the Baseline Requirements." ? The currently proposed "documentation" might be too broad because the Baseline Requirements uses the phrase "annually update a Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement". (Here, implementing the conjunctions "and" and "or" get messy.) Currently, the MRSP v. 2.7.1 uses the phrase "CPs and CPSes MUST be reviewed and updated...".