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

[Kirk Hall]

Ah, yes – now I see your offer of support to Dimitris:

For what it's worth - I agree with this sentiment, and it's worth considering, separate of 9.16.3, whether to _revise_ the BRs to accomodate this case. Such revisions must account for ambiguity. In many ways, the BRs strive to eliminate the rampant ambiguity that existed due to CAs' various practices, as a whole (since no two CAs really have the same CP/CPS), and so we should strive, as much as possible, to unambiguously represent the information that members see as valuable.

But when I suggested what you had earlier suggested - a BR ballot to accommodate the case – you then opposed my suggestion.  That was the source of the confusion.

So are you willing to support a ballot to allow C-EL?

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 5:12 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 7:55 PM, Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com<mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>> wrote:
“*** 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.”
It appears you are unwilling to allow the BRs to deviate ISO-3166 – correct?

No, this is not correct, although I appreciate you asking for confirmation this time rather than misrepresenting what I said. I do hope that, as Chair, you consider this as a future strategy for more productive and harmonious discussion.

I was asking you to share more detail about why you supported changing it, especially given your admission that you did not understand the reasons why it it existed. Unfortunately, it seems you did not understand this request, which I am given to assume it also means you did not understand why I requested it, nor do you understand the concerns I originally expressed with changing it.

If you re-read my messages, you will see I was - and am - quite supportive of the discussion Dimitris proposed. In supporting this discussion, I asked you to explain the rationale for your support. Further, I attempted to highlight the danger and problem with your position - supporting a change you do not understand to text which exists for a reason you do not understand. I'm unclear why you would do so, given that you provided no details other than you didn't understand it, and I provided reasons that it does exist, but for which you seemed to not understand. It does seem unwise to use ignorance as a attempt to appear progressive, and an attempt to explain in a way that you might understand, I made an analogy for which there's ample explanation available, in the hopes that if you did not understand me, you might at least avail yourself to other resources.

I welcome discussion of this point in the Forum, and hope that those who would support such a ballot will be able to articulate what they understand the current requirements to be intended for, and why it would be desirable to change. I suspect this will require further research on your part, so I do hope you reconsider this request that you be able to articulate your understanding before proposing changes.

All the best
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170318/70f2b54e/attachment-0003.html>