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

[Rob Stradling]

Here's a different theory...

http://forum.geonames.org/gforum/posts/list/58.page#203

'However, the United Kingdom and the Ukraine both wanted "UK" so rather
  than start World War III over the matter, the United Kingdom was
  assigned "GB" and the Ukraine was assigned "UA."'

On 19/03/17 17:50, philliph--- via Public wrote:
> The Web Site does not tell the truth of the matter. The reason the codes
> were created in the first place was for the car codes and HMG didn’t
> want people vandalizing cars because they had UK on them.
>
> The reason I know is that my cousin was minister for Transport and I
> asked him.
>
> This is the ex-post-facto rationalization because the real reason could
> not be given.
>
>
>
>
>> On Mar 17, 2017, at 7:57 PM, Peter Bowen via Public
>> <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Kirk,
>>
>> ISO 3166 was apparently created in 1974 to provide a distinct two
>> letter code for each country.  From their own FAQ
>> (https://web.archive.org/web/20120616044022/http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/iso_3166-faqs/iso_3166_faqs_specific.htm):
>>
>>
>>       Why is the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern
>>       Ireland) coded GB in ISO 3166-1?
>>
>>
>> The codes in ISO 3166-1 are - wherever possible - chosen to reflect
>> the significant, unique component of the country name in order to
>> allow a visual association between country name and country code.
>> Since name components
>> like /Republic/, /Kingdom/, /United/, /Federal /or /Democratic /are
>> used very often in country names we usually do not derive the country
>> code elements from them in order to avoid ambiguity. The name
>> components /United /and /Kingdom/ are not appropriate for ISO 3166-1.
>> Therefore the code "GB" was created from Great Britain and not "UK"
>> for United Kingdom. Incidently, GB is also the United
>> Kingdom's /international road vehicle distinguishing sign/ - the code
>> on the oval nationality stickers on cars.
>>
>> Given that neither the EU or Greece has requested EL to be reserved
>> for any purpose (https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:EL) I don’t
>> believe it makes sense to use this in the country code field.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 17, 2017, at 3:55 PM, Kirk Hall via Public
>>> <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>> 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.
>>>
>>> *From:* Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] *On Behalf
>>> Of *Ryan Sleevi via Public
>>> *Sent:* Friday, March 17, 2017 1:12 PM
>>> *To:* Dimitris Zacharopoulos <jimmy at it.auth.gr <mailto:jimmy at it.auth.gr>>
>>> *Cc:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com>>;
>>> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org
>>> <mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] C=GR, C=UK exceptions in BRs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com
>>> <mailto:sleevi at google.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Dimitris Zacharopoulos
>>>     <jimmy at it.auth.gr <mailto:jimmy at it.auth.gr>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         The "spirit" of 9.16.3 is also to bring conflicting
>>>         requirements to the CA/B Forum to consider possible revisions
>>>         accordingly. This is exactly what I am doing, without
>>>         violating the current BRs, but hoping that the CA/B Forum
>>>         will read this as a conflicting requirement which could be
>>>         resolved by adding a simple exception, without creating any
>>>         risk in current practices.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Of course, it might be that identity information in certificates is
>>> not valuable, precisely because of ambiguities and conflicts that
>>> naturally emerge from CAs. In that case, it might be worthwhile to
>>> simply stop trying to represent identity information within
>>> certificates, and accept that ambiguity, rather than try to carve it
>>> up. However, since the Forum values identity information at present,
>>> it makes sense to opt for strictness as much as possible, or to
>>> explicitly describe the deviations permitted and assess their risk,
>>> as you propose doing and is worth at least discussing :)

-- 
Rob Stradling
Senior Research & Development Scientist
COMODO - Creating Trust Online