[cabfpub] Naming rules

Wed Mar 22 16:56:25 UTC 2017

This is fine if the locality/state is not the only way to reach the intended goal.
Thanks,M.D.

Sent from Samsung tablet.
-------- Original message --------From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> Date: 3/22/17  15:35  (GMT+01:00) To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org> Cc: "Moudrick M. Dadashov" <md at ssc.lt> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Naming rules 
While I appreciate the goal-oriented approach, as we've seen from the past decade of Forum operation, without accompanying the what with the how, we end up not accomplishing either.
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Moudrick M. Dadashov via Public <public at cabforum.org> wrote:
Right, there maybe other confusing cases that's whš I think we should just require (what) uniqueness instead of locality/state (how).
Thanks,M.D.

Sent from Samsung tablet.
-------- Original message --------From: Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Public <public at cabforum.org> Date: 3/22/17  15:20  (GMT+01:00) To: public at cabforum.org Cc: Dimitris Zacharopoulos <jimmy at it.auth.gr> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Naming rules 

    If both companies "ABC" are located in the same city, then with
    current rules, there will be a DN collision, right? I don't think
    you can avoid that with the current BRs.

    Dimitris.

    On 22/3/2017 3:56 μμ, Jeremy Rowley via
      Public wrote:

        Correct.
            For #5 to be true, #3 must be true (which is still unclear),
            and OV must represent jurisdiction of incorporation (which
            it doesn’t). 

        From:
            Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com] 

            Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 7:33 AM

            To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List
            <public at cabforum.org>

            Cc: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>; Jeremy
            Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>

            Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Naming rules

              On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:30 AM,
                Jeremy Rowley via Public <public at cabforum.org>
                wrote:

                There's one important item that
                  seems unclear to me. What I took from reading Li
                  Chun's message:

                  1)      Taiwan has a country-level registration

                  2)      Taiwan has a city-level registration

                  3)      The two are not mutually exclusive (ie ABC
                  Company at the country level might be a completely
                  different entity than ABC Company at the city level)

                  4)      You want the BRs to distinguish whether the
                  ABC Company was registered with the country of Taiwan
                  vs. a city registration.

                  5)      If locality is included in a cert, the actions
                  of ABC Company (country) could be falsely attributed
                  to the ABC Company (local)

                  I can't tell if #3 is true. If it is, then I can see
                  why we'd want to make the change. If #3 is not true,
                  then the change is only for convenience in Taiwan.

                #5 is true if and only if we view
                  OV information to indicate jurisdiction of
                  incorporation. If it indicates physical address, then
                  #5 is not true, correct? 

      _______________________________________________
Public mailing list
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/20170322/ad16dd74/attachment-0003.html>