CAs could introduce a monthly certificate pricing with a minimal start term of 3 months and you only pay for the months you need.
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Matthias Merkel <[email protected]> wrote: > One thing you should consider though is that a lot of people only renew > their domains when they are due but may want to keep them for longer. Maybe > CAs should provide free renewal up to the paid certificate lifetime when > the domain is renewed. > > > ---- On Fr, 12 Jan 2018 12:33:48 +0100 * [email protected] > <[email protected]> * wrote ---- > > I will compile a spreadsheet of whois availability of all TLDs listed > here: https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db and get back to you with the > results. > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 8:05 AM, Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 7:52 PM, James Burton <[email protected]> wrote: > > *The Baseline Requirements, Section 4.9.1.1, requires that the CA revoke > if:* > *6. The CA is made aware of any circumstance indicating that use of a > Fully-Qualified Domain Name or IP* > *address in the Certificate is no longer legally permitted (e.g. a court > or arbitrator has revoked a Domain Name* > *Registrant’s right to use the Domain Name, a relevant licensing or > services agreement between the Domain* > *Name Registrant and the Applicant has terminated, or the Domain Name > Registrant has failed to renew the* > *Domain Name); * > > It would be great if one or more of the CAs here could provide me with > some yearly statistics of certificates revoked due to these circumstances > listed above. > > *In order to do something as you propose, it must be possible to determine > the domain registration period. How do you propose to do that consistently > for all domains? (It's not actually available consistently).* > > All registries must provide a whois/status service, so determining the > domain registration period is as simple as hot knife going through butter. > > > While true for ICANN-contracted TLDs, there are TLDs beyond those - such > as ccTLDs. That's what I was referring to, as it was recently discussed in > the Forum regarding 3.2.2.4.1 methods of validation, and is (as some > members noted), part of why 3.2.2.4.1 exists. > > > _______________________________________________ > Public mailing list > [email protected] > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public > > >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
