[cabfpub] Naming rules

[Moudrick M. Dadashov]

In fact Rich is correct within a government managed registry the C field is unique - therefore its not in the registry, its has a constant value for all registry records.
I'm still curiuos why a CA, being aware of a publicly accessible government managed registry, would ever use 'another registry' presumably with the same content.
Thanks,M.D.


Sent from Samsung tablet.
-------- Original message --------From: Ryan Sleevi via Public <public at cabforum.org> Date: 3/28/17  17:25  (GMT+02:00) To: Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com> Cc: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>, public at cabforum.org Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Naming rules 
If that's the ballot that folks would like to go forward with, then let's just find endorsers and vote. We can vote on flawed proposals - at least we know how people feel about those flaws, which is useful in itself.
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com> wrote:
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> 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/20170328/77c79b6a/attachment-0003.html>