search

Abhayakara / draft-tldr-sutld-ps

Special-Use Internet Names Problem Statement
0 stars 0 forks source link

Section 4.2.2: clarify how .onion was affected by CA/Browser Forum #95

Closed rdroms closed 7 years ago

rdroms commented 7 years ago

From Spencer Dawkins' IESG review:

I'm wondering how .onion was "affected" in this text,

  Second, for some time, the CA/Browser Forum [SDO-CABF] had been
  issuing certificates for what they referred to as "internal
  names."  Internal names are names allocated unilaterally for use
  in site-specific contexts.  Issuing certificates for such names
  came to be considered problematic, since no formal process for
  testing the validity of such names existed.  Consequently, CA/
  Browser Forum decided to phase out the use of such names in
  certificates [SDO-CABF-INT], and set a deadline after which no new
  certificates for such names would be issued [SDO-CABF-DEADLINE].
  Because the .onion name had been allocated unilaterally, it was
  affected by this policy.

Is this saying that existing certificates for .onion could not be renewed? Or that the nice .onion people planned to get certificates, and now they couldn't? Or something else? I'm guessing 

  The IETF's designation of .onion as a Special-Use Top-Level Domain
  Name was needed to facilitate the development of a certificate
  issuance process specific to .onion domain names
  [SDO-CABF-BALLOT144].

is describing how .onion was affected, but I don't know if that's what was meant by "was affected", or something else.

wkumari commented 7 years ago

Perhaps: "Because the .onion name had been allocated unilaterally, this .onion names would not be eligible to obtain certificates." ?

Abhayakara commented 7 years ago

I think you could change the last sentence to "Because the .onion domain was allocated unilaterally, this would mean that certificates for subdomains of .onion could no longer be issued."