Confirm, administrator
5,526
edits
Changes
Added section about RFC 3647 with guidance for use of 'No Stipulation'
For root certificates with the Websites (TLS/SSL) trust bit enabled, Mozilla requires the corresponding CP/CPS documents to include a statement of commitment to comply with the CA/Browser Forum's Baseline Requirements, as per section 2.2 of the [https://cabforum.org/baseline-requirements-documents/ BRs.]
===== CP/CPS Structured According to RFC 3647 =====
CP/CPS documents must be structured according to RFC 3647. This requirement is stated in section 2.2 of the CA/Browser Forum Baseline Requirements, with the effective of 31 May 2018. Further, CP/CPS documents should include every component and subcomponent, and the placement of information should be aligned with the BRs; e.g. domain validation practices should be documented in section 3.2.2.4 of the CA’s CP/CPS.
The words "No Stipulation" mean that the particular document imposes no requirements related to that section.
Any CPS that falls within the scope of Mozilla’s program must not use the words “No stipulation” unless the corresponding section in the CA/Browser Forum Baseline Requirements state “No stipulation”, “Not applicable”, or is blank. The words “Not applicable” are acceptable to indicate that the CA’s policies forbid the practice that is the title of the section. Language similar to “We do not perform <subject of the section>” is preferred. If a full description of a section is repeated elsewhere in the document, language similar to “Refer to Section 1.2.3” is preferred. Cross-referencing between CP and CPS documents is acceptable.
Examples:
* If your CA does not allow a particular domain validation method to be used, then the CP or CPS should say that, e.g. "This method of domain validation is not used".
* The BRs do not allow certificate suspension, so the CA’s CPS must state that certificate suspension is not allowed, and then the other sections related to suspension should say “Not applicable”.
* If your CA does not issue SSL certs containing IP addresses, then section 3.2.2.5, ‘Authentication for an IP Address’ in your CP or CPS should say that such certificate issuance is not allowed; e.g. “No IP address certificates are issued under this CPS.”
* If your CP contains the full description of section 5, then the CPS may say "As stipulated in section 5 of the CP". (This assumes that the CP is also published on your website, and the CP and CPS documents clearly indicate which root certificates they govern.)
===== CP/CPS Documents will be Reviewed! =====
