Looks good. Thank you. Curt
> On Jul 19, 2017, at 2:44 PM, Peter Bowen <[email protected]> wrote: > > This was discussed on the last validation working group call. Jeremy provided > a revision to the 3.2.2.4.2 text to try to address this specific issue. > > I’ve attached another draft that builds on my previous draft. Here is the > relevant text. How does this look? > > 3.2.2.4.4 Email to Constructed Address > > Confirm the Applicant's control over the requested Domain Name by (i) sending > an email to one or more addresses created by using 'admin', 'administrator', > 'webmaster', 'hostmaster', or 'postmaster' as the local part, followed by the > at-sign ("@"), followed by an Authorization Domain Name, (ii) including a > Random Value in the email, and (iii) receiving a confirming response > utilizing the Random Value. > > Each email MAY confirm control of multiple Domain Names, provided the > Authorization Domain Name used in the email is an Authorization Domain Name > for each Domain Name being confirmed > > The CA MAY resend an email, fax, SMS, or postal mail that reuses the > previously sent Random Value if the communication's entire contents > (including the Random Value) and recipient(s) are not changed. In all other > cases, CA MUST use a unique Random Value in each email, fax, SMS, or postal > mail > > The confirming response MUST be received no more than 30 days after the > creation of the Random Value. The CPS MAY specify a shorter validity period > for Random Values, in which case the CA MUST follow its CPS. > > > > <CA-Browser Forum BR 1.4.10 draft with 182bis.docx> > >> On Jul 19, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Curt Spann <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi Peter, >> >> I have one question about ballot 190 Section: 3.2.2.4.2: >> Section: 3.2.2.4.2 Email, Fax, SMS, or Postal Mail to Domain Contact >> >> Text: “The CA MAY send the email, fax, SMS, or postal mail identified under >> this section to more than one recipient provided that every recipient is >> identified by the Domain Name Registrar as representing the Domain Name >> Registrant for every Domain Name being verified using the email, fax, SMS, >> or postal mail. >> >> The Random Value SHALL be unique in each email, fax, SMS, or postal mail.” >> >> Question: In the case of multiple recipients is this the same email, fax, >> SMS, postal mail being sent to each recipient individually which means the >> random value will be the same for all or will the random value be different >> per recipient? >> >> Cheers, >> Curt >> >>> On Jul 16, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Peter Bowen via Public <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Kirk, >>> >>> One clarification. My draft of Ballot 190 does not include the changes >>> from 202, rather it assumes the BRs already include the changes in 202. It >>> is also worth noting that the yellow highlights in the 190 draft are for >>> review purposes only; that are not meant to be in the final BRs. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Peter >>> >>>> On Jul 16, 2017, at 2:07 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Peter has put together two ballots, Ballot 202 (now in the discussion >>>> period, ending Wed.) and 190, and presented them as track changes in the >>>> entire BRs. I have created the attached pdfs that only include the pages >>>> with changes (I think – Peter, double check me) for easier review. >>>> Certain changes, like the revision of the important new definition of >>>> Authorization Domain Name, affect both ballots. >>>> >>>> This is an unusual situation – Ballot 202 will likely be voted on first, >>>> so Peter has assumed Ballot 202 passes and includes all the 202 changes in >>>> his Ballot 190. So I recommend people start by reviewing 202, and then >>>> 190 knowing it includes those changes from 202. >>>> >>>> I also attach my last version of Ballot 190 v6 so we can make sure 202/190 >>>> include all the necessary changes. >>>> >>>> I have not had time to review these ballots in detail yet, but given how >>>> little time we have before voting starts, I encourage others to review >>>> them quickly and forward any questions / comments. Because this affects >>>> domain validation rules, we want to make sure we get this right. >>>> <Ballot 202 (PB 7-13-2017) CA-Browser Forum BR 1.4.10 draft.pdf><Ballot >>>> 190 (PB 7-13-2017) CA-Browser Forum BR 1.4.10 draft with >>>> 182bis.pdf><Ballot 190 v6 >>>> (7-6-2017).pdf>_______________________________________________ >>>> Public mailing list >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public >>>> <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Public mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public >>> <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public> >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
