<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
On 08/01/2012 02:53 PM, From William Madell:
<blockquote cite="mid:012201cd6fdc$4805a470$d810ed50$@trustis.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">An
explicit guideline should also help avoid situations of
non-uniformity, whereas a non-explicit guideline in the BRs
could allow (for example) StartCom to decide on ‘XK’ as the
alpha-2 for Kosovo, while Trustis assigns ‘XV’ for Kosovo,
Comodo assigns ‘XO’, etc., etc. Each CA’s arbitrary
designation might meet the requirements of a non-explicit
guideline, but it wouldn’t provide the uniformity across CAs
that is necessary for the Relying Parties.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That's the reason I believe we should stick to the ISO code
exclusively. I personally don't want to be in the situation to
decide which entity is entitled for some code nor define what it
should be...<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">Regards </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Signer: </td>
<td>Eddy Nigg, COO/CTO</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td><a href="http://www.startcom.org">StartCom Ltd.</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>XMPP: </td>
<td><a href="xmpp:startcom@startcom.org">startcom@startcom.org</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Blog: </td>
<td><a href="http://blog.startcom.org">Join the Revolution!</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Twitter: </td>
<td><a href="http://twitter.com/eddy_nigg">Follow Me</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>