<div dir="ltr"><div>A special-use domain is a reserved TLD. That was the point in which I tried to spell out, by pointing to the multiple references that explain that.</div><div><br></div><div>You reference "the language IESG actually uses", but you've entirely missed that they (and IANA) both use reserved TLDs as terms.</div><div><br></div><div>Apologies that this isn't clearer, but I think if the confusion is so fundamental, then I cannot help but doubt using "special-use domain" would bring any clarity.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:57 AM, <a href="mailto:kirk_hall@trendmicro.com">kirk_hall@trendmicro.com</a> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kirk_hall@trendmicro.com" target="_blank">kirk_hall@trendmicro.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Ryan, you are always the one who holds us to a strict interpretation of the Bylaws when some flexibility would be useful: “What do the Bylaws say?” So I would have expected
you to take the same position on a Ballot. Ballot 144 allows .onion certs to continue if “</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;background:white">(and only if) .onion is officially recognized by the IESG as a reserved
TLD.” So that was the basis of suggesting we conform the language to the term that
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> IESG actually uses, “special-use domains.”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Ryan Sleevi [mailto:<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" target="_blank">sleevi@google.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 23, 2015 10:08 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Kirk Hall (RD-US)<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Gervase Markham; CABFPub (<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>)<span class=""><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] FW: Extension of period allowing .onion certificates<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 9:39 AM, <a href="mailto:kirk_hall@trendmicro.com" target="_blank">
kirk_hall@trendmicro.com</a> <<a href="mailto:kirk_hall@trendmicro.com" target="_blank">kirk_hall@trendmicro.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p><div><div class="h5">
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Our existing rule only allows .onion certs to be issued “<span style="color:black;background:white">after (and only
if) .onion is officially recognized by the IESG as a reserved TLD.” </span></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Here is what IETF did – the RFC makes it pretty clear how the .onion domain may be used.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7686" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7686</a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domain-names.xhtml" target="_blank">http://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domain-names.xhtml</a>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">However, it is a “special-use” domain. They also have “Policy Reserved Domains”</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><a href="https://www.iana.org/domains/reserved" target="_blank">https://www.iana.org/domains/reserved</a>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I know at least one CA was of the opinion that it can no longer issue .onion certs.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Maybe we should add an amendment to a future uncontroversial ballot (unless someone objects) to clear this up.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I'm not sure a ballot is necessary. This seems solely based on a misunderstanding of the role of various SDOs and how the IANA process works. This is no different than a member misunderstanding RFC 5280 - that's not something we generally
ballot to 'explain' how RFC 5280 works, no more than we ballot to explain RFC 2119 language.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">IANA reserved domains encompasses "Example Domains", "Test IDN top-level domains", "Policy-reserved domains", and "Other Special-Use Domains". These are all categories of reserved domains.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As you note, the IANA-managed registry is managed under the terms of RFC 6761 - which spells out somewhat unambiguously what it is:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6761" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6761</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">"This document describes what it means to say that a Domain Name (DNS name) is reserved for special use, when reserving such a name is appropriate, and the procedure for doing so. It establishes an IANA registry for such domain names,
and seeds it with entries for some of the already established special domain names."<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">If any such ballot is put forward, I think it would be extremely important, if not necessary, for the CA you allude to to step forward and explain the reasoning and source of confusion. Otherwise, this feels like dealing with an abstract
hypothetical, and any changes - positive or negative - will merely be debated in the abstract, which would end up taking far longer than necessary.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<table><tbody><tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff"><font color="#000000"><pre><table><tbody><tr><td><pre>TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential
and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or
disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
</pre></td></tr></tbody></table></pre></font></td></tr></tbody></table></blockquote></div><br></div>