Template:Did you know nominations/DNS Certification Authority Authorization
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
DNS Certification Authority Authorization edit
... that DNS Certification Authority Authorization was developed after a series of incorrectly issued digital certificates damaged trust in publicly trusted certificate authorities.Source: A series of mis-issuances shook this fundamental trust and led to various additional security mechanisms: ..., and (iv) Certification Authority Authorization
- Reviewed: The nominator has fewer than five DYK credits.
Improved to Good Article status by TheDragonFire (talk). Self-nominated at 12:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC).
Doing... Pratyush (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
The article was nominated within seven days of getting GA status. The prose section is more than 1500 character long. The article is neutral, cites sources with inline citation, no copyvio issue based on Earwig's copyvio detector. Hook is less than 200 characters long, is neutral and cited. QPQ not required. Article is good to go. Pratyush (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this, but I am having trouble understanding the technical language of the hook; also, the words "certification authority/certificates/certificate authorities" (is that last one correct? Or is it "certification authorities"?) is rather repetitive. Is there any way to state this more simply? Yoninah (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- ALT1:
... that DNS Certification Authority Authorization was developed after a series of digital attacks on certificate authorities.Source: previous source for "developed after", new source to clarify timeline of attacks - "Certificate authority" is by far the most common term used when referring to these entities. I somehow hadn't noticed that the specification itself refers to them as "certification authorities" – this would seem to be a form more common in formal policy documents. The hook is technically correct, although I appreciate the concern that it is very dense. Perhaps ALT1 would be better? TheDragonFire (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ALT, TheDragonFire. I personally think the original hook had more interest to it. Would it be possible to use a different term other than "certificate authorities" at the end of the original hook? Like:
- ALT2:
... that DNS Certification Authority Authorization was developed after a series of incorrectly issued digital certificates damaged trust in publicly trusted entities?Yoninah (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- I think I prefer "issuing authorities" to "publicly trusted entities", as the latter is somewhat devoid of meaning. Perhaps ALT3? TheDragonFire (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- ALT3: ... that DNS Certification Authority Authorization was developed after a series of incorrectly issued digital certificates damaged public trust in issuing authorities?
- Thank you, TheDragonFire, ALT3 is great. I just have one more question. Are all the listings under Examples cited to footnote 7? This cite is repeated in several listings, but not in paragraph numbers 3-6. If the cite covers all of them, you just need one cite at the beginning. If paragraphs 3-6 are from a different source, you need to cite that per Rule D2. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- That entire section has been a bit of a pain. The examples marked with a citation are those with stronger text–source integrity against a corresponding example in the standard. Those not marked, are still very much based on the standard, but have either been adjusted for clarity, or an example has been constructed based on prose in the standard. I had left these in there because they were informative, they were on the very mild side of WP:SYNTHESIS, and I was hoping to later find a source for them. As you're the second editor to mention them, I've moved them to the talk page to avoid the trouble. TheDragonFire (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- ALT1:
