-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Thomson <[email protected]>
Sent: 18 October 2021 09:46
To: Owen Friel (ofriel) <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Acme] 2nd working group call for adoption
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021, at 18:00, Owen Friel (ofriel) wrote:
> Not sure why "domainNamespace" is used as the field when "subdomains"
> is shorter and easier to understand.
>
>
> [ofriel] there was early discussion on the mailer about what exactly a
> 'subdomain' meant. So we quoted the CA/B Browser baseline definitions
> and used that terminology instead. Note that the draft is not
> restricted to web use cases, so basing terminology on CA/B is not by
> any means mandatory. I have no strong preference on what we call the
> field at all - subdomains and namespaces are both used in the draft,
> so happy to change to whatever is clearest.
RFC 8499:
Subdomain: "A domain is a subdomain of another domain if it is
contained within that domain.
I found "namespaces" confusing. I don't think we need to borrow CA/BF
obfuscations.
[ofriel] As section
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-friel-acme-subdomains-05#section-7.1
already explicitly states that this draft is not restricted to Web PKI use
cases and CA/B policy, and is equally applicable to e.g. IoT use cases or
Private CA use cases, it makes sense to stick to generic IETF RFC 8499
terminology, and use that to define subdomain.
And even though the appendix explicitly references version 1.7.1 of the CA/B
reqs, its probably worth deleting that appendix completely, as its already out
of date.
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
