[cabfpub] Ballot 190: Domain Validation
Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com
Thu Apr 13 21:07:06 UTC 2017
Can you explain what part of Ballot 190 (shown below) is not clear to you? Do you have edits you would suggest that would “fix” the problem you see?
Ballot Section 1 [Readopts various domain validation methods of BR 184.108.40.206]
Ballot Section 2
The provisions of Ballot Section 1 will apply only to the validation of domain names occurring after this Ballot 190’s effective date. Validation of domain names that occurs before this Ballot’s effective date and the resulting validation data may continue to be used for the periods specified in BR 4.2.1 and EVGL 11.14.3 so long as the validations were conducted in compliance with the BR Section 220.127.116.11 validation methods in effect at the time of each validation.
While the BRs may not be a legal document the same as a state or federal statute, it makes sense that we would follow the same procedures in their adoption and codification that are used by legislatures (county commissions, city halls, etc.) around the world.
Your interpretation is your own, but it’s not binding on the Forum, and it’s not correct.
From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:00 PM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 190: Domain Validation
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com<mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>> wrote:
Your analysis below is not correct. The “law” in the CA/Browser Forum is what is approved by the members in a Ballot (all of it – in Ballot 190, that includes both Section 1 and Section 2 – both sections have equal validity and applicability because both were adopted by the members at the same time.)
I'm sorry Kirk, but your analysis is not correct.
What suggestion of the documents are you suggesting Section 2 modifies? How are you suggesting members audit it, if not part of the document? How are you suggesting future Ballots reform it?
In contrast, the BRs are just a compilation of those portions of prior adopted Ballots that have long-term applicability to members. It’s a mistake to junk up the BRs with lots of effective dates and transition rule that will expire, and it’s unnecessary. Again, the adopted ballots of the Forum are the “law” – all sections of the ballots equally – and not the BR compilations themselves. I think Google’s Legal Department will agree.
Kirk, I will again emphasize to you the Baseline Requirements are not a legal document. Your legal analysis is appreciated, but not relevant. These are technical standards. They belong in the standards.
We could put ballot transition rules in BRs themselves (for Ballot 190, move from Section 2 to Section 1 and make part of BR 18.104.22.168), but I would rather not – then the transition rules are no longer relevant (because they are time-based and will expire), they have to be pulled out again by a later ballot – not useful. The transition rules will exist in Section 2 of the adopted Ballot 190 itself, and that is sufficient.
I strongly disagree here.
Another option is to add transition rules like Ballot 190, Section 2 to the BRs as “Notes” to BR 22.214.171.124 that are not part of BR 126.96.36.199, and that can later be removed by the BRs compiler without a further ballot once the transition rules are no longer relevant (because all validation data from before the effective date of Ballot 190 will have expired). That’s what some legislatures do, and I wouldn’t object to that.
They are either normative parts of the technical standards or they are not. If they want to have force, they are normative.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public