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

Sat Mar 18 05:08:34 UTC 2017

Thank you all for the vivid discussion. I think there are simpler 
questions to answer rather than going back reading history books. I 
suppose the main argument is the following:

Some Greek agencies, for non-technical reasons, might request C=EL to 
identify Greece in OV or EV SSL Certificates. Despite "EL" not being 
reserved in ISO-3166 and that the majority of Certificates will use 
C=GR, IMO these rare cases for C=EL should be accepted. I never asked 
myself why they would require that and I wouldn't try to persuade them 
otherwise, since it is clear that Greece has been officially using "EL". 
I guess this gives them "the right" to ask C=EL if they so desire, no 
questions asked.

And please, Peter, let's not dive into the discussion "what does the 
Subject Information represent" and whether it is an official mailing 
address or not. Some official mail correspondence from Greece (from the 
ministry of foreign affairs) do what you just wrote, they use "Hellenic 
Republic" and not "Greece" :)

The same might apply to Government agencies in the UK. Kirk, thank you 
for the support. If members have no strong objections about these two 
exceptions, we might introduce them in a future ballot.

Thanks,
Dimitris.

On 18/3/2017 2:06 πμ, Peter Bowen via Public wrote:
>
> Kirk,
>
> I think it is worth taking a step back.  What problem are we trying to 
> solve?  I feel like we are saying “I want to mail a letter to Greece 
> but I want to write 'Hellenic Republic' or '/Ellinikí Dimokratía' /in 
> the country line on the address rather than ‘Greece', even though the 
> Universal Postal Union says international mail needs to say ‘Greece’”.
>
> Thanks,
> Peter
>
>> On Mar 17, 2017, at 4:55 PM, Kirk Hall via Public 
>> <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>> 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?
>> If so, what other remedy is available to Dimitris to be able to use 
>> C=EL for Greece instead of C=GR?
>> *From:*Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
>> *Sent:*Friday, March 17, 2017 4:36 PM
>> *To:*Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com 
>> <mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>>
>> *Cc:*CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org 
>> <mailto:public at cabforum.org>>; Dimitris Zacharopoulos 
>> <jimmy at it.auth.gr <mailto:jimmy at it.auth.gr>>
>> *Subject:*Re: [cabfpub] C=GR, C=UK exceptions in BRs
>> Hi Kirk,
>> Could you highlight where I said that? It would be useful to 
>> understand what caused your confusion, as that's not what I said.
>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Kirk Hall 
>> <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com 
>> <mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     So there is your answer, Dimitris – Ryan thinks you must petition
>>     ISO.  Good luck with that.
>>     *From:*Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com
>>     <mailto:sleevi at google.com>]
>>     *Sent:*Friday, March 17, 2017 4:06 PM
>>     *To:*Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com
>>     <mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>>
>>     *Cc:*CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org
>>     <mailto:public at cabforum.org>>; Dimitris Zacharopoulos
>>     <jimmy at it.auth.gr <mailto: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 theWikipedia 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Public mailing list
>> Public at cabforum.org <mailto:Public at cabforum.org>
>> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170318/288a5930/attachment-0003.html>