[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Updated Ballot 190 v5 dated July 6, 2017

[Geoff Keating]

> On 6 Jul 2017, at 11:09 pm, Kirk Hall via Public <public at cabforum.org> wrote:
> 
> No one has actually given any examples of how the Notes as they exist in Ballot 190 will do any harm – if they are surplus to the existing language there is no real problem.  So the Notes will stay in Ballot 190 for certainty, BUT no one will be happier that I if the Validation WG goes back through Methods 1-10 and applies the standard terms Authorization Domain Name, etc. consistently to all 10 validation methods for a new ballot that eliminates the Notes.

If the Notes contradict the existing language, which of the two control?

I think Peter did actually go through all the methods and point out which kind of name gets validated.

I agree with Ryan and Peter here.  I think the existing language is clear and adding the Note just confuses the situation.  We have carefully written definitions of Authorization Domain Name and Base Domain Name to solve this very issue.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3321 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170706/453fdda2/attachment.p7s>