How about explicitly listing the standards (e.g. RFCs) whose requirements are "assumed mandatory"?
Thanks, M.D. On 3/19/2016 6:26 PM, Peter Bowen wrote: > I’d like to explore creating a “corrections” ballot for the Baseline > Requirements with a focus on non-controversial changes that are not intended > to change the underlying requirements but instead clarify them. In order to > ensure that it does not become an omnibus ballot mixing controversial bits > with non-controversial bit, any member can ask to remove a topic to a > separate ballot, no reason required or questions asked. This should > hopefully leave only a set of non-controversial changes. > > To kick this off, here are a list of things I’ve noted from the F2F and list > posts: > > 1) Move the information reuse paragraph (as per Doug’s email this week) > > 2) Clarify the wildcard definition to make it clear that it is only “*.” + a > FQDN, not a “*” anywhere in the left label (no “foo*.example.com” or > “*foo.example.com") > > 3) Explicitly allow the commonName in the Subject to contain domain names > encoded using U-labels (meaning a certificate can have > "xn--vernderung-s5a.com” in the SAN and “veränderung.com” in the CN) > > 4) Allow “_” in FQDNs > > 5) Ensure “Subscriber Agreement or Terms of Use” is used instead of > “Subscriber or Terms of Use Agreement” and ensure that ToU covers the CA > itself in addition to affiliates > > 6) Clarify that the Subscriber can authorize others to store and use their > private key (e.g. VPS/hosting provider) > > Other topics not proposed, as I think they are probably worth their own > ballot if they are to be addressed: > > - Email addresses, SRVNames, and other defined OtherNames in SANs > > - Clarifying that a CA can have multiple types of issuers each with their own > separate private key (re: Dimitris’ email "Distinction between Intermediate > CAs and Subordinate CAs”) > > > Does anyone have suggestions of other things that should be considered for a > BR corrections ballot or think any of my suggested items should be a separate > ballot? > > Thanks, > Peter > _______________________________________________ > Public mailing list > [email protected] > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
