- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:03:38 +0100
- To: Johnathan Nightingale <johnath@mozilla.com>
- Cc: WSC WG <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
Hello, at the face-to-face on 10/23, we minuted a resolution to drop points 5.4.1B-F (and 5.1.5E along with them). That is, fundamentally, the material we have about Key Continuity Management. Looking at the minutes in more detail, I see that the discussion had this agreement as tentative, specifically pending feed- back from Johnathan. The text concerned is the following: > When, for a TLS-protected HTTP connection, the certificate chain > presented by the server does not lead to a trusted root certificate, > and the certificate chain presented was not pinned to the > destination at hand, the following applies to user agents that are > capable of storing and using information about certificates that > were previously encountered: > > • If a validated certificate (including an augmented assurance > certificate) was previously presented by the same destination, then > error signalling of class danger (6.4.4 Danger Messages) MUST be used. > • If a different certificate was previously pinned to the same > destination, then error signalling of class warning or higher (6.4.3 > Warning/Caution Messages , 6.4.4 Danger Messages) MUST be used. User > agents MAY offer the possibility to pin the newly encountered > certificate to the destination at hand. > • Otherwise, user agents MAY use error signalling of class > notification (6.4.2 Notifications and Status Indicators ) to offer > pinning a given certificate, consistent with 5.1.5 Self-signed > Certificates and Untrusted Root Certificates. > • Otherwise, user agents SHOULD use error signalling of class > warning or higher (6.4.3 Warning/Caution Messages , 6.4.4 Danger > Messages). -- http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#sec-tlserrors Along with it goes the following language in the section on self- signed certificates: > If a client is able to automatically accept a self-signed > certificate, or recover from similar problem without user > interaction, it MUST support a mechanism to store and use > information about certificates that were previously encountered, and > to detect changes against historical usage of certificates as > described in more detail in section 5.4.1 TLS errors. -- http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#selfsignedcerts Given that the decision was minuted as a tentative one, I propose finalizing it on an upcoming conference call. Note that I'm commenting out the material in question in the next editor's draft. -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 22 December 2008 13:13:03 UTC