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

Mon Mar 20 15:16:29 UTC 2017

I can’t see that being the reason as Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union at the time and the UK was and is a member of the UN security council.

> On Mar 20, 2017, at 6:36 AM, Rob Stradling <rob.stradling at comodo.com> wrote:
> 
> Here's a different theory...
> 
> http://forum.geonames.org/gforum/posts/list/58.page#203 <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> <mailto: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 <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 <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> <mailto: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 <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> <mailto:jimmy at it.auth.gr <mailto:jimmy at it.auth.gr>>>
>>>> *Cc:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com> <mailto:sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com>>>;
>>>> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>
>>>> <mailto: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>
>>>> <mailto: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> <mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170320/a3730f8e/attachment-0003.html>