CA/Browser Forum
Home » Posts » Ballot 201 – .onion Revisions

Ballot 201 – .onion Revisions

Results on Ballot 201 – .Onion Revisions

The voting period for Ballot 201 has ended, and the ballot passed. Here are the results.

Voting by CAs – 12 votes total, including abstentions

  • 8 Yes votes: Buypass, Cisco, DigiCert, Entrust, GDCA, GlobalSign, GoDaddy, HARICA

  • 0 No votes:

  • 4 Abstain: Chunghwa Telecom, Disig, OATI, Symantec

100% of voting CAs voted in favor

Voting by browsers – 3 votes total, including abstentions

  • 3 Yes votes: Apple, Google, Mozilla

  • 0 No votes:

  • 0 Abstain:

100% of voting browsers voted in favor

Under Bylaw 2.2(g), a ballot result will be considered valid only when more than half of the number of currently active Members has participated. Votes to abstain are counted in determining a quorum. Half of currently active Members as of the start of voting is xx, so quorum was 10 votes. 15 votes (including abstentions) were cast – quorum was met.

Bylaw 2.2(f) requires a yes vote by two-thirds of CA votes and 50%-plus-one browser votes for approval. Votes to abstain are not counted for this purpose. This requirement was met for both CAs and browsers.

At least one CA Member and one browser Member must vote in favor of a ballot for the ballot to be adopted. This requirement was met

Ballot 201 passes.

Ballot 201 – .Onion Revisions

This ballot is meant to cure any potential problems with Ballot 198, which may have been invalid due to ambiguities in what was presented to the Forum for vote. This Ballot 201 attempts to clarify Appendix F of the EV Guidelines concerning the Tor Service Descriptor Hash extension and that inclusion of the extension in the TBSCertificate is required.

The following motion has been proposed by Jeremy Rowley of DigiCert and endorsed by Ryan Sleevi of Google and Wayne Thayer of GoDaddy to introduce new Final Maintenance Guidelines for the “Guidelines for the Issuance and Management of Extended Validation Certificates” (EV Guidelines).

Attached is a PDF with a redline showing how Appendix F of the current EV Guidelines will be amended.

Motion begins

Part 1:

The CA/Browser Forum, recognizing that Ballot 198 did not include a redline version against the current Final Maintenance Guidelines, thereby constitutes an invalid Ballot. As a consequence, the Forum agrees that the changes shall not be made to the appropriate Final Maintenance Guideline, and as such, no IPR Review Notice is in force for Ballot 198:

Part 2:

Revise Appendix F, Section 1, to read as follows:

Appendix F – Issuance of Certificates for .onion Domain Names

A CA may issue an EV Certificate with .onion in the right-most label of the Domain Name provided that issuance complies with the requirements set forth in this Appendix:

  1. CAB Forum Tor Service Descriptor Hash extension (

The CA MUST include the CAB Forum Tor Service Descriptor Hash in the TBSCertificate to convey hashes of keys related to .onion addresses. The CA MUST include the Tor Service Descriptor Hash extension using the following format:

cabf-TorServiceDescriptorHash OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { }

SEQUENCE ( 1..MAX ) of TorServiceDescriptorHash

TorServiceDescriptorHash:: = SEQUENCE {

onionURI UTF8String

algorithm AlgorithmIdentifier

subjectPublicKeyHash BIT STRING


Where the AlgorithmIdentifier is a hashing algorithm (defined in RFC 6234) performed over the DER-encoding of an ASN.1 SubjectPublicKey of the .onion service and SubjectPublicKeyHash is the hash output.

–Motion Ends–

The procedure for approval of this Final Maintenance Guideline ballot is as follows (exact start and end times may be adjusted to comply with applicable Bylaws and IPR Agreement):

BALLOT 201 Status: Final Maintenance Guideline Start time (22:00 UTC) End time (22:00 UTC)

Discussion (7 to 14 days) May 25, 2017 June 1, 2017

Vote for approval (7 days) June 1, 2017 June 8, 2017

If a vote of the Forum approves this ballot, the Chair will initiate a 30-day IPR Review Period by sending out an IPR Review Notice.

After 30 days of announcing the IPR Review period by the Chair:

  1. If Exclusion Notice(s) are filed, this ballot approval is rescinded and a PAG will be created; or
  2. If no Exclusion Notices are filed, this ballot becomes effective at end of the IPR Review Period.

From Bylaw 2.3: If the Draft Guideline Ballot is proposing a Final Maintenance Guideline, such ballot will include a redline or comparison showing the set of changes from the Final Guideline section(s) intended to become a Final Maintenance Guideline, and need not include a copy of the full set of guidelines. Such redline or comparison shall be made against the Final Guideline section(s) as they exist at the time a ballot is proposed, and need not take into consideration other ballots that may be proposed subsequently, except as provided in Bylaw Section 2.3(j).

Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread on the Public list. A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear ‘yes’ in the response. A vote against must indicate a clear ‘no’ in the response. A vote to abstain must indicate a clear ‘abstain’ in the response. Unclear responses will not be counted. The latest vote received from any representative of a voting member before the close of the voting period will be counted. Voting members are listed here:

In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes cast by members in the CA category and greater than 50% of the votes cast by members in the browser category must be in favor. Quorum is half of the number of currently active Members, which is the average number of Member organizations that have participated in the previous three Forum-wide meetings (both teleconferences and face-to-face meetings). Under Bylaw 2.2(g), at least the required quorum number must participate in the ballot for the ballot to be valid, either by voting in favor, voting against, or abstaining.

Latest releases
Code Signing Requirements
v3.7 - Mar 4, 2024

S/MIME Requirements
v1.0.4 - Ballot SMC06 - May 11, 2024

Ballot SMC06: Post implementation clarification and corrections

Edit this page
The Certification Authority Browser Forum (CA/Browser Forum) is a voluntary gathering of Certificate Issuers and suppliers of Internet browser software and other applications that use certificates (Certificate Consumers).