<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>As discussed on the November 18th validation subcommittee call, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I offered to write some text that would clarify the importance <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>of binding the request to the customer when doing method 7, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>for CAs that allow DNS delegation to a domain they control.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>For the purposes of starting the discussion, what about adding<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>the following text to the end of Method 7 (3.2.2.4.7), before<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>the ubiquitous Note:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>---<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>CAs MAY operate domains for the purpose of assisting customers<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>with this validation, and MAY instruct customers to add a CNAME<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>redirect from an Authorization Domain Name to such a domain.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>If the CA does so, the CA SHALL ensure that each domain name is<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>used for a unique Applicant, and not shared across multiple<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Applicants.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>---<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>This at least fixes the urgent problem, which is that some CAs<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>might currently be doing this in insecure ways.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-Tim<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>