<div dir="ltr">Kirk<div><br></div><div>The ISO/DIS 21188 is not part of the normative definition. It sounds like the concern is that the 'technical language' being used here is the standard form of unambiguously representing a character (by referring to its Unicode code point). Is that correct?</div><div><br></div><div>If so, this should normally be obvious to a reader of appropriate technical specifications, since it's a convention used throughout the IETF, the W3C, ISO documents, etc.</div><div><br></div><div>More generally, the language proposed by Peter was illustrative to other examples of specifications that use this form, but not normative ("in accordance with"). That is, one could easily substitute your proposed "in accordance with" with a number of other equivalent specifications, without changing the semantic or normative meaning.</div><div><br></div><div>For this reason, it would be much clearer overall, even if it may be an unfamiliar approach to you, to adopt Peter's text as written. That would reduce confusion that might otherwise be introduced by your proposed edit (particularly, ambiguity as to what it means by "in accordance with" and why ISO/DIS 21188 is referenced in only this section)</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Kirk Hall via Public <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</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 class="m_-7068635392000996008WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Peter – first, you are so smart I will (almost) always do what you say. But here is my concern – when you read your new definition,
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">("</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#24292e">A Domain Name consisting of "<span class="m_-7068635392000996008pl-cce">\*</span>." (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:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#24292e"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">"</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#24292e">A Domain Name consisting of "<span class="m_-7068635392000996008pl-cce">\*</span>."
(U+002A ASTERISK, U+002E FULL STOP) prepended to a Fully-Qualified Domain Name </span>
<b><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">in accordance with the provisions of
</span></u></b><b><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">ISO/DIS 21188 section 5.12.3</span></u></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">.”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">At least a reader would have a fighting chance of knowing where the highly technical definition came from.<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"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">What do others think?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<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"> Peter Bowen [mailto:<a href="mailto:pzb@amzn.com" target="_blank">pzb@amzn.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, June 17, 2017 10:22 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Kirk Hall <<a href="mailto:Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com" target="_blank">Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com</a><wbr>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Pre-ballot for Ballot 190<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kirk,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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 <a href="https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/master...pzb:underscores?expand=1" target="_blank">https://github.com/<wbr>cabforum/documents/compare/<wbr>master...pzb:underscores?<wbr>expand=1</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Would you consider adopting a definition closer to the one I proposed ("<span style="font-family:Consolas;color:#24292e;background:#e6ffed">A Domain Name consisting of "<span class="m_-7068635392000996008pl-cce">\*</span>." (U+002A ASTERISK, U+002E FULL STOP)
prepended to a Fully-Qualified Domain Name.”)?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Consolas;color:#24292e;background:#e6ffed"><br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Consolas;color:#24292e;background:#e6ffed">Thanks,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Consolas;color:#24292e;background:#e6ffed">Peter</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Jun 17, 2017, at 5:41 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">1.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt"> <span class="m_-7068635392000996008apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">There
are changes to two Definitions, and a new definition as shown.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">2.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt"> <span class="m_-7068635392000996008apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">3.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt"> <span class="m_-7068635392000996008apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">4.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt"> <span class="m_-7068635392000996008apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">__________________<wbr>_____________________________<br>
Public mailing list<br>
</span><a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#954f72">Public@cabforum.org</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><br>
</span><a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#954f72">https://cabforum.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/public</span></a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Public mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a><br>
<a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/public</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>