[cabfpub] Naming rules

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Peter Bowen <pzb at amzn.com> wrote:

> Who cares if there are collisions in cert subjects?  We already have that
> possibility and this doesn’t really change that.
>

Can you provide an example using the current validation requirements? I
would think that the need for names to be meaningful and the validation
procedures would exist to disambiguate these names by using a unique (for
purpose) construction.


> Would it help if we moved the Subject Identified requirements to an
> overlay guideline such that the BRs only covered Internet-scope validation
> (e.g. just dNSName, ipAddress, SRVName, and maybe rfc822Address)?
>

And commonName
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170325/6ab1a896/attachment-0003.html>