[cabfpub] Naming rules

[Peter Bowen]

> On Mar 25, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Peter Bowen via Public <public at cabforum.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Mar 25, 2017, at 12:53 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> We allow individual names in certificates.  There is zero requirement that only one person with an unique name live in the same city.  Growing up we used to routinely get calls for someone who had the same name as my father who lived all of three blocks from us.
> 
> Additionally, looking at https://arcc.sdcounty.ca.gov/pages/fbn-info.aspx it explicitly says:
> 
> "All prospective registrants are cautioned that REGISTRATION OF A FICTITIOUS NAME DOES NOT GUARANTEE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THAT NAME.”

In addition to this, it notes that there is no state registration of fictitious names, it is handled at the county level.  However communities (localities) can span county lines.  For example:

1998 ROAD 152
DELANO CA 93215-9437
is in Tulare County, while

728 MAIN ST
DELANO CA 93215-2936
is in Kern County.

Under California law and according to the BRs, two unrelated businesses, if they had these addresses, could each be validated for:

/C=US/ST=California/L=Delano/O=Turquoise Haberdashery

>> 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
> 
> OK.  If the BRs only covered GeneralNames in the SubjectAlternativeName extension of types dNSName, ipAddress, rfc822Address and otherName (of type SRVName) and Subject Attributes of type commonName, would that help?