[cabfpub] Naming rules

[Ryan Sleevi]

Jurisdiction A defines an independent directory tree (D1).
Jurisdiction B defines an independent directory tree (D2).

D1 uses the naming scheme defined by Jurisdiction A
D2 uses the naming scheme defined by Jurisdiction B.

Unless you know all of the laws regarding Jurisdiction A, B, C, ... Z, and
can make an effective declaration that no jurisdiction exists that defines
a directory tree (D0) that conflicts with either D1 or D2, then you cannot
assert that D1 or D2 are unique.

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 8:31 PM, Moudrick M. Dadashov <md at ssc.lt> wrote:

> Hi Ryan, can you give an example of 'cross-jurisdictional directory trees'?
>
> Thanks,
> M.D.
>
>
>
> Sent from Samsung tablet.
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
> Date: 3/25/17 01:15 (GMT+01:00)
> To: "Moudrick M. Dadashov" <md at ssc.lt>
> Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>, Ben
> Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Naming rules
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Moudrick M. Dadashov <md at ssc.lt> wrote:
>
>> Auditor examine it through the same government adopted registry.
>>
>> In fact if government has a centralised register, there is a very little
>> chance that the same data  catogories will be maintained in two different
>> resources - duplication of responsibilitiies is prohibited by law.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> M.D.
>>
>
>
> Hi Moudrick,
>
> I'm sorry, but it may not have been clear, I was talking about
> cross-jurisdictional directory trees. There's nothing that would ensure
> their unambiguous uniqueness here, and as proposed, two entities could have
> X.500 DITs that reflected both _their_ jurisdiction and, more importantly,
> how _their_ jurisdiction views other jurisdictions.
>
> I believe you've misunderstood this to be about a single jurisdiction, but
> I was not talking about that. Auditors would have to be aware of all
> jurisdictions - and more importantly, all jurisdictional laws that apply or
> are relevant for CAs. This is much like the can of worms related to 9.16.3
> in which some laws or registries only apply to specific participants.
>
> So while your responses would be correct for a single jurisdiction, that's
> not the issue :)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170324/b8fac438/attachment-0003.html>