Kirk, In order for any browser to access a website with an Internationalized Domain Name, it must be able to convert Unicode (i.e. non-English language) to LDH-labels (i.e. punycode), as it is LDH labels that are sent to the DNS server. Therefore the situation where a browser can handle Unicode in the address bar but cannot handle punycode in the certificate should not exist.
In order to address the concerns raised by CFCA, GDCA, and SHECA, I have spent the last couple of hours processing all the unexpired certificates in CT logs to quantify the impact of the rule proposed in this ballot and look at alternatives. There are currently 385,042 certificates with Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), including both IDNs where the ccTLD has non-ASCII characters and ones where some other portion of the name has non-ASCII characters. Of these, zero were issued by CFCA, GDCA, or SHECA. So there would be no known impact to these CAs. That being said, there are 20,055 certificates which have Unicode in the common name issued by other CAs. Having Unicode common names is far less prevelant than punycode common names; 364,987 certificates with IDNs do not have Unicode common names. In testing in the browsers which I have on my desktop, I don’t see any difference but it is possible that local browsers may show a difference. Here are two sites to test: https://会影基地.cn <https://xn--6oqy0rkra12v.cn/> and https://城惠网.cn <https://xn--uisy4s8rz.cn/> I saw Ryan’s response to you and he suggests that "consistent and unambiguous representation” is needed in the common name. Based on testing the 20,055 certificates, it looks like we can have this by allowing a CA to choose to either use all LDH labels in a common name or use only NR-LDH labels and U-labels, where the U-labels are created by converting the A-labels to Unicode. This would give the option of two consistent and unambiguous representations — one in punycode and one in Unicode. Adding this option for CAs would all full representation of languages in the common name. Thanks, Peter > On Jul 26, 2017, at 9:41 AM, Kirk Hall via Public <[email protected]> wrote: > > Peter, Ben, and Ryan – do you have a response to the punycode issue raised by > CFCA, GDCA, and SHECA? > > From: Public [mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of ?? via Public > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 1:44 AM > To: 'CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List' <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: '赵改侠' <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: [EXTERNAL][cabfpub] Reply: Ballot 202 - Underscore and Wildcard > Characters > > CFCA votes No > > we suggest that the punycode shouldn't be applied on SSL certs in this > approach. > > For non-English countries, the domain name may be displayed wrong in some > browers in punycode and the governance policy requires that local CA should > obey the laws to display local language when ccTLD is used in local language. > IF punycode is used and the browsers(Which I mean any browsers including > local browsers) couldn't translate it into local language , the website > visitors may be confused. > > <> <> <> <>Zhang Yi > Business Research Competent > China Financial Certification Authority > Business Department > > Address: Bldg. 2， #20， 14th Kechuang street, YiZhuang Economic-Technological > Development Zone，Daxing District，Beijing , P. R. China > Postcode: 100176 > TEL: +86 010-58903555 > Mobile: +86 18510280028 > Email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > 发件人: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] 代表 > Erwann Abalea via Public > 发送时间: 2017年7月26日 2:39 > 收件人: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List; Ben Wilson > 主题: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 202 - Underscore and Wildcard Characters > > Bonsoir, > > DocuSign France votes No. > > While there are good clarifications around domain names, FQDNs, wildcards, > and reserved labels, there are a few drawbacks: > > 1. Underscores in SAN:dNSName entries. It’s not the current BR that disallows > underscores in dNSNames, it’s X.509 and RFC5280 (and current DNS > specifications), and there is no justification about allowing underscores > other than « it’s done by some admins » or « Microsoft allows it ». While > domain names can contain anything (even characters such as '[({*$!?" ), > dNSName shall contain a host name, and host names shall only be composed of > LDH labels. I’d prefer the standards to be changed instead of explicitly > allowing deviations from the standard. > > 2. « Reserved IP address ». The new definition now allows a CA to deliver a > certificate for an obviously invalid IP (I doubt anyone could claim « owning > » 192.0.0.9 or 192.0.0.10, and I haven’t fully checked the others). > > 3. « Wildcard Domain Name ». The new definition is not robust enough. An FQDN > is a sequence of Domain Labels —which can contain any character—, so « > *.domain.com <http://domain.com/> » is a valid FQDN, so « *.*.domain.com > <http://domain.com/> » is a valid Wildcard Domain Name according to this > definition. > > > Cordialement, > Erwann Abalea > > Le 12 juil. 2017 à 19:24, Ben Wilson via Public <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : > > Ballot 202 - Underscore and Wildcard Characters > > The current Baseline Requirements do not expressly allow underscore > characters in Subject Alternative Names. This ballot seeks to clarify that > one or more underscore characters (“_”) are allowed in FQDNs. In many places > it also replaces the term "FQDN" with "Domain Name" because "Domain Name" now > means either "FQDN" or "Wildcard Domain Name". The ballot clarifies > validation of wildcard domain names. It also cleans up some of the language > in Sections 3.2.2.4 and 7.1.4.2.1 of the Baseline Requirements. > > The following motion has been proposed by Ben Wilson of DigiCert and endorsed > by Peter Bowen of Amazon and Ryan Sleevi of Google to introduce new Final > Maintenance Guidelines for the "Baseline Requirements Certificate Policy for > the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates" (Baseline > Requirements). > > --Motion Begins-- > > A. In Sections 1.3.2, 1.6 (Base Domain Name), 2.2, 3.2.2.4, 3.2.2.4.5, > 3.2.2.4.6, 3.2.2.4.10, 3.2.2.4.11, 4.2.1, 4.9.1.1.6, and 4.9.11 of the > Baseline Requirements, REPLACE the words "Fully Qualified Domain Name" and > "FQDN" with "Domain Name". > > B. In Section 1.6.1 of the Baseline Requirements, REPLACE the definition for > "Authorization Domain Name" with the following: The Domain Name used to > obtain authorization for certificate issuance for a given Domain Name. The CA > may use the FQDN returned from a DNS CNAME lookup as the Domain Name for the > purposes of domain validation. If the Domain Name is a Wildcard Domain Name, > then the CA MUST remove “*.” from the left most portion of requested Domain > Name. The CA may prune zero or more labels from left to right until > encountering a Base Domain Name and may use any one of the intermediate > values for the purpose of domain validation. > > C. In Section 1.6.1 of the Baseline Requirements, INSERT the following > definition: "Domain Label: An individual component of a Domain Name." > > D. In Section 1.6.1 of the Baseline Requirements, REPLACE the definition for > "Domain Name" with the following: A set of one or more Domain Labels, each > separated by a single full stop character ("."). > > E. In Section 1.6.1 of the Baseline Requirements, REPLACE the definition for > "Fully-Qualified Domain Name" with the following: A Domain Name that includes > the Domain Labels of all superior nodes in the Internet Domain Name System. > > F. In Section 1.6.1 of the Baseline Requirements, REPLACE the definition for > "Reserved IP Address" with the following: An IPv4 or IPv6 address that the > IANA has "False" for Globally Reachable in either of the IANA Special-Purpose > IP Address Registries: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml > > <https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml> > or > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml > > <https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml> > G. In Section 1.6.1 of the Baseline Requirements, REPLACE the definition for > "Wildcard Certificate" with the following: A Certificate containing a > Wildcard Domain Name in any of the Subject Alternative Names in the > Certificate. > > H. In Section 1.6.1 of the Baseline Requirements, INSERT the following > definition: "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." > > I. In Section 2.2 of the Baseline Requirements, INSERT the word "requested" > in the fourth sentence between the words "processing CAA records for" and > "Domain Names" so that it reads, "processing CAA records for requested Domain > Names". > > J. REPLACE the second paragraph of Section 3.2.2.4 of the Baseline > Requirements so that it reads, "The CA SHALL confirm that, as of the date the > Certificate issues, the CA has validated each Domain Name listed in the > Certificate using at least one of the methods listed below, or is within the > Domain Namespace of a Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) that has been > validated using at least one of the methods listed below (not including the > method defined in section 3.2.2.4.8)." > > K. REPLACE Section 3.2.2.6 of the Baseline Requirements in its entirety with: > > 3.2.2.6. Additional Validation for Wildcard Certificates > > Before issuing a Wildcard Certificate, the CA MUST establish and follow a > documented procedure[^pubsuffix] that determines if the FQDN portion of any > Wildcard Domain Name in the certificate is “registry-controlled” or is a > “public suffix” (e.g. “*.com”, “*.co.uk <http://co.uk/>”, see RFC 6454 > Section 8.2 for further explanation). > > If the FQDN portion of any Wildcard Domain Name in the certificate is > "registry-controlled" or is a "public suffix", CAs MUST refuse issuance > unless the applicant proves its rightful control of the entire Domain > Namespace. (e.g. CAs MUST NOT issue "*.co.uk <http://co.uk/>" or "*.local", > but MAY issue "*.example.com <http://example.com/>" to Example Co.). > > [^pubsuffix] Determination of what is “registry-controlled” versus the > registerable portion of a Country Code Top-Level Domain Namespace is not > standardized at the time of writing and is not a property of the DNS itself. > Current best practice is to consult a “public suffix list” such as > http://publicsuffix.org/ <http://publicsuffix.org/> (PSL), and to retrieve a > fresh copy regularly. If using the PSL, a CA SHOULD consult the "ICANN > DOMAINS" section only, not the "PRIVATE DOMAINS" section. The PSL is updated > regularly to contain new gTLDs delegated by ICANN, which are listed in the > "ICANN DOMAINS" section. A CA is not prohibited from issuing a Wildcard > Certificate to the Registrant of an entire gTLD, provided that control of the > entire namespace is demonstrated in an appropriate way. > > L. REPLACE Section 7.1.4.2.1 of the Baseline Requirements in its entirety > with: > > 7.1.4.2.1 Subject Alternative Name Extension > > Certificate Field: extensions:subjectAltName > > Required/Optional: Required > > Contents: This extension MUST contain at least one entry. Each entry MUST be > one of the following types: > > 1. dNSName: the entry MUST contain either a Fully-Qualified Domain Name or > Wildcard Domain Name that the CA has validated in accordance with section > 3.2.2.4. FQDNs and the FQDN portion of Wildcard DNs must comply with RFC 5280 > section 4.2.1.6 with the following exception: underscore characters ("_") are > allowed in Domain Labels such that replacing all underscore characters with > hyphen characters ("-") would result in a valid Domain Label. CAs MUST NOT > include Domain Labels which have hyphens as the third and fourth characters > unless the first character is "x" or "X", the second character is "n" or "N", > and the fifth and later characters are a valid Punycode string. CAs MUST > additionally validate that Wildcard DNs are consistent with section 3.2.2.6. > The entry MUST NOT contain an Internal Name. > > 2. iPAddress: the entry MUST contain an IP address that the CA has validated > in accordance with Section 3.2.2.5. The entry MUST NOT contain a Reserved IP > Address. > > M. REPLACE subsection a. of Section 7.1.4.2.2 of the Baseline Requirements > with: > > a. Certificate Field: subject:commonName (OID 2.5.4.3) > > Required/Optional: Deprecated (Discouraged, but not prohibited) > > Contents: If present, this field MUST contain a single IP address or Domain > Name that is one of the values contained in the Certificate’s subjectAltName > extension (see Section 7.1.4.2.1). When including a Domain Name in a common > name, CAs MUST only use LDH labels as defined in RFC 5890 and MUST NOT use > U-labels. When including an IPv6 address in a common name, CAs MUST use a > format conforming to Section 4 or Section 5 of RFC 5952. When including an > IPv4 address in a common name, CAs MUST encode the name as an IPv4Address as > defined in RFC 3986. > > --Motion Ends-- > > The procedure for approval of this Final Maintenance Guideline ballot is as > follows (exact start and end times may be adjusted to comply with applicable > Bylaws and IPR Agreement): > > BALLOT 202 Status: Final Maintenance Guideline Start time (22:00 UTC) End > time (22:00 UTC) > > Discussion (7 to 14 days) July 12, 2017 to July 19, 2017 > > Vote for approval (7 days) July 19, 2017 to July 26, 2017 > > If a vote of the Forum approves this ballot, the Chair will initiate a 30-day > IPR Review Period by sending out an IPR Review Notice. > > After 30 days of announcing the IPR Review period by the Chair: > > (a) If Exclusion Notice(s) are filed, this ballot approval is rescinded and a > PAG will be created; or (b) If no Exclusion Notices are filed, this ballot > becomes effective at end of the IPR Review Period. > > From Bylaw 2.3: If the Draft Guideline Ballot is proposing a Final > Maintenance Guideline, such ballot will include a redline or comparison > showing the set of changes from the Final Guideline section(s) intended to > become a Final Maintenance Guideline, and need not include a copy of the full > set of guidelines. Such redline or comparison shall be made against the Final > Guideline section(s) as they exist at the time a ballot is proposed, and need > not take into consideration other ballots that may be proposed subsequently, > except as provided in Bylaw Section 2.3(j). > > Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread on the Public > list. A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear 'yes' in the > response. A vote against must indicate a clear 'no' in the response. A vote > to abstain must indicate a clear 'abstain' in the response. Unclear responses > will not be counted. The latest vote received from any representative of a > voting member before the close of the voting period will be counted. Voting > members are listed here: https://cabforum.org/members/ > <https://cabforum.org/members/> > In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes cast > by members in the CA category and greater than 50% of the votes cast by > members in the browser category must be in favor. Quorum is half of the > number of currently active Members, which is the average number of Member > organizations that have participated in the previous three Forum-wide > meetings (both teleconferences and face-to-face meetings). Under Bylaw > 2.2(g), at least the required quorum number must participate in the ballot > for the ballot to be valid, either by voting in favor, voting against, or > abstaining. > > > <Ballot 202.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
