[cabfpub] Naming rules

[Ben Wilson]

Ryan,

I suppose you are unwilling to suggest language that would correct this perceived flaw in the proposal?

Ben

 

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 8:17 AM
To: Rich Smith <richard.smith at comodo.com>
Cc: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Naming rules

 

 

 

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Rich Smith <richard.smith at comodo.com <mailto:richard.smith at comodo.com> > wrote:

Ryan, Ben’s wording states that the registry is at the national level, so rather than talking about Jurisdiction A and B, the labels are correctly Country A and Country B, therefore even if every other field in the registries were the same the C field will always be unique to the particular registry, therefore the particular entries between the registries would be unique.  Am I missing something?

 

Yes, there's no guarantee the C field is unique for the registry.

 

As a thought experiment, consider a country that participates in multiple international treaties that allow for X.500 registries.

As a thought experiment, consider a country that provides a naming ontology for its international partners.

As a thought experiment, consider multiple national government organizations adopting their own X.500 DIT.

 

The assumption here, which is incorrect in the lens of history, is that the X.500 DIT exists and disambiguates these countries.

 

I am in resounding agreement with Peter - either we should put forward a ballot or we should stop discussing this further.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170328/bb52c554/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4974 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170328/bb52c554/attachment-0001.p7s>