[cabfpub] C=GR, C=UK exceptions in BRs

[Kirk Hall]

So there is your answer, Dimitris – Ryan thinks you must petition ISO.  Good luck with that.

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 4:06 PM
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>; Dimitris Zacharopoulos <jimmy at it.auth.gr>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] C=GR, C=UK exceptions in BRs



On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com<mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>> wrote:
Ryan makes a good point – where there is a conflict between local law or practice (or desired practice) and the BRs, the best first step is to amend the BRs to allow compliance with local law or practice (or desired practice).

As I recall the country codes we are all stuck with were created in the 1960s for a purpose unrelated to SSL and digital certificates.  There must have been a good reason for representing the United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland (for now), and Northern Ireland) as “GB” when Northern Island (part of the UK) is not in Great Britain and UK is the more generally known acronym for the United Kingdom – but I can’t imagine what the good reason was.

Instead of a ballot that presents a sweeping new structure for country names, or points to another new document, maybe we just create an Appendix to the BRs that allows different country codes for Greece and the United Kingdom (as an alternative).  We would endorse such a ballot.

Can you explain why?

That is - Why you would endorse such a ballot? Why you believe the Forum should change?

I appreciate that you highlighted your unfamiliarity with the history of why these country codes exist, or what their values should be, as this serves as a useful reminder to highlight the notion of Chesterton's Fence, named after the poet-philosopher G.K. Chesterton.

While you can find many resources on this topic, perhaps it's worthwhile to quote the Wikipedia entry on him<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton> that explains this concept:

Chesterton's fence is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood. The quotation is from Chesterton’s 1929 book The Thing: Why I am a Catholic, in the chapter entitled "The Drift from Domesticity": "In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

I think that we would be opposed to such a ballot until details can be provided that hopefully satisfy this simple request. In my reply, which it sounds like you agree with, I highlighted the problem that the existing Baseline Requirements are trying to address. It's unclear to me whether you understood, but disagreed, with my statement, or whether you simply misread it. Given that ISO-3166 is actively maintained - thus your recollection is, unfortunately, not correct or accurate - it would be useful to understand why you see deviating from this, and what problems you would believe it would solve.

I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this very simple request.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170317/dea72274/attachment-0003.html>