Draft 8 of Mozilla CA certificate policy
I’ve created a new draft 8 of the proposed Mozilla CA certificate policy. The main substantive changes are as follows: I changed references to “users” to clarify that we’re referring to users of the products distributed by the Mozilla Foundation through mozilla.org. I added a requirement for CA disclosure of business practices in the form of a Certification Practice Statement. Besides being a good idea in general, it’s typically the CPS that is referenced in auditor/evaluator reports, so it’s needed to provide a more complete picture of the CA’s conformance to whatever criteria are used to evaluate its operations. (For examples of Certification Practice Statements see my draft Mozilla CA certificate list.) I removed the explicit reference to knowledge of X509v3 in the qualifications for an independent and qualified third party. I consider it implicit in the reference to “related standards” and I’m not sure how useful it is to single out X509v3 in this context. I explicitly allowed for the possibility of the Mozilla Foundation doing its own CA evaluations, as requested by Zach Lipton and others. Note that I worded this clause the way I did because in practice such evaluations—if ever done—would almost certainly be done not by actual Mozilla Foundation employees but rather by someone else designated to act on their behalf. I added a note that we will reject CA requests if we don’t get the needed information in a timely manner. In part this is to motivate me to actually resolve requests with a “yes” or “no” answer, as opposed to letting them sit in Bugzilla without action. (I’ll definitely plead guilty to this, and I apologize to the CAs for which it’s happened. I’m going to try this month to go through all the CA-related bug reports and resolve them one way or another.) ...