[cabfpub] FW: Extension of period allowing .onion certificates
kirk_hall at trendmicro.com
kirk_hall at trendmicro.com
Mon Nov 23 11:57:46 MST 2015
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 “(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 IESG actually uses, “special-use domains.”
From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 10:08 AM
To: Kirk Hall (RD-US)
Cc: Gervase Markham; CABFPub (public at cabforum.org)
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] FW: Extension of period allowing .onion certificates
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 9:39 AM, kirk_hall at trendmicro.com<mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> <kirk_hall at trendmicro.com<mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>> wrote:
Our existing rule only allows .onion certs to be issued “after (and only if) .onion is officially recognized by the IESG as a reserved TLD.”
Here is what IETF did – the RFC makes it pretty clear how the .onion domain may be used.
However, it is a “special-use” domain. They also have “Policy Reserved Domains”
I know at least one CA was of the opinion that it can no longer issue .onion certs.
Maybe we should add an amendment to a future uncontroversial ballot (unless someone objects) to clear this up.
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.
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.
As you note, the IANA-managed registry is managed under the terms of RFC 6761 - which spells out somewhat unambiguously what it is:
"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."
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.
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public