Hi I have some comments and suggested edits, see attached document with proposed changes in the text and corresponding comments. I think this will clarify some topics and remove some inconsistency.
Some of the changes are what I consider to be typos. The others may be categorized in two parts: 1. Domain Contact vs Domain Name Registrant - section 3.2.2.4.2 and 3.2.2.4.3 The definition of Domain Contact includes Technical and Administrative Contact in addition to Domain Name Registrant. My proposed changes is to clarify this, e.g. replace the term Domain Name Registrant with Domain Contact where relevant to remove inconsistency. 2. Base Domain Name vs Authorization Domain Name vs FQDN Some of the sections use these terms differently for the same situation - see section 3.2.2.4.2 and 3.2.2.4.3. This is confusing and I would like to harmonize the use of these terms. I do also propose a change in the title for section 3.2.2.4.4 since the definition of Domain Contact do not include this specific case where the email address is constructed and not listed in a WHOIS record. I also think it is important to file this ballot now and I will endorse it. Regards Mads From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via Public Sent: 18. juni 2017 02:42 To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List Cc: Kirk Hall Subject: [cabfpub] Pre-ballot for Ballot 190 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the discussion we have had on whether a change to a validation method means all prior validations using that method are no longer valid, we have made some changes.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) if all changes adopted - mads.docx
Description: Ballot 190 (6-17-2017) if all changes adopted - mads.docx
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
