[Servercert-wg] Discussion Period Begins on Ballot SC48 - Domain Name and IP Address Encoding

[Yoshiro YONEYA]

Hi all,

My apologies for this delayed response.

I've read the difference on Github:
https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/cf4e17a43977dcf7cb9c9e41efd2df4be4707e13...a42756b50d2d377396673983908f059cccd2bd9f

Followings are my comments regarding to modification.
The line number is indicating modified (green) part of the difference.

- line number 164
  The term "P-Labels" is unappropriate, it should be replaced by "A-labels" which is defined by RFC 5890 (and also referred by RFC 8499).

- line number 164
  RFC 8399 updates RFC 5280 for using internationalized string in certificates, and this line (plus corresponding main part) should refer to RFC 8399 explicitly.
  ex: Fully-Qualified Domain Names MUST consist solely of A-labels and Non-Reserved LDH Labels according to RFC 8399.

- line number 365
  The term "P-Label" should be replaced by "A-label". Please see above.

- line number 555
  Reference to RFC 8399 should be added prior to this line.


  * * *

Following is my memorandum not directly related to this ballot, but probably need to be considered in the near future.

  RFC 8399 also describes EAI (Email Address Internationalization) in certificate.
  Future BR should address EAI as well, especially EAI in CAA RR (BR describes email address in CAA RR at 3.2.2.4.13).
  RFC 8659 does not define how to handle EAI in CAA RR, therefore, any guidance for using EAI as CAA email contact will be required.

Best regards,

-- 
Yoshiro YONEYA <yoshiro.yoneya at jprs.co.jp>

On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 13:00:11 +0000 Corey Bonnell via Servercert-wg <servercert-wg at cabforum.org> wrote:

> This email begins the discussion period for Ballot SC48 - Domain Name and IP
> Address Encoding
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Purpose of Ballot
> 
> 
> Ballot 202 set out to clarify requirements regarding encoding of domain
> names and IP addresses in Subscriber Certificates, but the Ballot ultimately
> failed to pass. Since then, there have been numerous differences in
> interpretation of the written requirements.
> 
> This Ballot seeks to resolve these differences in interpretation and to
> provide unambiguous guidance on the correct encoding of domain names and IP
> addresses in Subscriber Certificates.
> 
>  
> 
> The following motion has been proposed by Corey Bonnell of DigiCert and
> endorsed by Ryan Sleevi of Google and Dimitris Zacharopoulos of HARICA.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Motion Begins
> 
> 
> This ballot modifies the "Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and
> Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates" ("Baseline Requirements"),
> based on Version 1.7.6:
> 
> MODIFY the Baseline Requirements as specified in the following Redline:
> 
>  
> <https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/cf4e17a43977dcf7cb9c9e41efd2
> df4be4707e13..a42756b50d2d377396673983908f059cccd2bd9f>
> https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/cf4e17a43977dcf7cb9c9e41efd2d
> f4be4707e13...a42756b50d2d377396673983908f059cccd2bd9f
> 
>  
> 
> This ballot modifies the "Guidelines for the Issuance and Management of
> Extended Validation Certificates" ("EV Guidelines") as follows, based on
> Version 1.7.6:
> 
> MODIFY the EV Guidelines as defined in the following redline:
> 
> https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/cf4e17a43977dcf7cb9c9e41efd2d
> f4be4707e13...a42756b50d2d377396673983908f059cccd2bd9f
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Motion Ends
> 
> 
> This ballot proposes a Final Maintenance Guideline.
> 
> The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:
> 
>  
> 
> Discussion (7+ days)
> 
> Start Time: 2021-07-06 13:00:00 UTC
> 
> End Time: 2021-07-13 13:00:00 UTC
> 
>  
> 
> Vote for approval (7 days)
> 
> Start Time: TBD
> 
> End Time: TBD
> 
>  
>