Kirk,
Would the following be more meaningful to you?
Wildcard Domain Name: A Domain Name consisting of a single asterisk
character followed by a single full stop character (“*.”) followed by a
Fully-Qualified Domain Name.
Feel free to drop the part is parenthesis if you don’t think it adds value.
Thanks,
Peter
> On Jun 17, 2017, at 11:14 PM, Kirk Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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] <mailto:[email protected]>]
> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 10:22 PM
> To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Cc: Kirk Hall <[email protected]
> <mailto:[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
>
> <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
> <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public>
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
