Peter – first, you are so smart I will (almost) always do what you say.  But 
here is my concern – when you read your new definition, ("A Domain Name 
consisting of "\*." (U+002A ASTERISK, U+002E FULL STOP) prepended to a 
Fully-Qualified Domain Name.”), it has no meaning to me.  Is this actually 
necessary?  Or, if you think it’s necessary, can we at least add a reference to 
the ISO document where you found it, such as:

"A Domain Name consisting of "\*." (U+002A ASTERISK, U+002E FULL STOP) 
prepended to a Fully-Qualified Domain Name in accordance with the provisions of 
ISO/DIS 21188 section 5.12.3.”

At least a reader would have a fighting chance of knowing where the highly 
technical definition came from.

What do others think?

From: Peter Bowen [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 10:22 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]>
Cc: Kirk Hall <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Pre-ballot for Ballot 190

Kirk,

Thanks for putting this together.  I have one request; ISO/DIS 21188 section 
5.12.3 makes it clear that a wildcard name is not a Fully Qualified Domain 
Name.  I had started to put together a set of changes to clarify this 
independent of this ballot.  The changes are available at 
https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/master...pzb:underscores?expand=1

Would you consider adopting a definition closer to the one I proposed ("A 
Domain Name consisting of "\*." (U+002A ASTERISK, U+002E FULL STOP) prepended 
to a Fully-Qualified Domain Name.”)?


Thanks,
Peter

On Jun 17, 2017, at 5:41 PM, Kirk Hall via Public 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

After working with some of the chief drafters of the changes to BR 3.2.2.4 over 
the past two years, I am posting this revised Ballot 190 which does a number of 
things:

1.       There are changes to two Definitions, and a new definition as shown.
2.       The current language of the domain validation section BR 3.2.2.4 is 
what we passed in Ballot 181, and is missing validation Methods 1-4 and 7-9 
with minor tweaks as indicated.  We are also eliminating Method 11 (previously 
Method 7) – “any other method.”  The language you see inserted is the same 
language as we passed in Ballot 169, except for the minor changes I 
specifically call out.
3.       We clarify that once the requested FQDN has been verified using a 
given validation method, the CA may also issue certificates for higher level 
domains that end in the validated FQDN.
4.       Finally, in response to the discussion we have had on whether a change 
to a validation method means all prior validations using that method are no 
longer valid, we have made some changes.  In essence, the BRs would not state 
that data, documents, and prior validations can be reused for the permitted 
reuse period under BR 4.2.1, unless the Forum specifically requires 
revalidation in a ballot.

I have attached the pre-ballot in two formats: (a) one in “track changes” from 
Ballot 181 and including comments (this will be the real ballot once we finish 
discussion and the comments are removed), and (b) the other showing how BR 
3.2.2.4 and 4.2.1 plus the definitions will read if Ballot 190 is adopted.  I 
am sending the documents in both Word and pdf formats.

We can discuss the ballot this week and on Thursday at the F2F meeting.  Next 
week, we can then file the ballot and start the discussion period (7 days), 
followed by the voting period.

One request – if you have comments or edits to suggest, please be VERY clear.  
This is a very complex ballot, and we will make the most progress if we avoid 
misunderstanding and talking past each other.  Also, if you don’t like a 
section, please suggest specific alternate wording for people to consider.
<Ballot 190 (6-17-2017) showing changes from Ballot 181.docx><Ballot 190 
(6-17-2017) showing changes from Ballot 181.pdf><Ballot 190 (6-17-2017) if all 
changes adopted.docx><Ballot 190 (6-17-2017) if all changes 
adopted.pdf>_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

Reply via email to