<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=big5">
<style type="text/css" id="owaParaStyle"></style>
</head>
<body fpstyle="1" ocsi="0">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">Peter,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">I have proposed a minimum change to the BRs to accommodate X.500 directory naming rules of existing PKIs in my reply to Gerv¡¦s mail. In that reply, I have made the rationales why the
BRs should embrace the existing X.500 naming rules. I also explain it is not proper to add an RDN with the localityName attribute or stateOrProvinceName attribute to the DN of a national-level entity, because doing so will cause misleading under the X.500
namespace. Therefore, I would not repeat my rationales here.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">As for your argument about "there are always localities that can be added into the subject DN", please see my reply inline.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Courier New";">> On March 10, 2017, at 11:33 PM, Peter Bowen <</span><span lang="EN-US">
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Courier New";">pzb@amzn.com> wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Courier New";">> [snip]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Courier New";">> Based on everything you have provided so far, there is no
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Courier New";">> evidence that Taiwan does not have localities (cities,
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Courier New";">> towns, villages, or similar) or that they are not used in
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Courier New";">> postal addressing. Much to the contrary, every postal
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Courier New";">> address example you have provided has included a
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Courier New";">> locality. Therefore this appears to be a situation where
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Courier New";">> the PKI does not want to change (possibly for quite valid
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Courier New";">> reasons) rather than cannot change.</span><br>
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br>
<!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">Yes, there are always different levels of "localities" under a jurisdiction or country. We never said Taiwan does not have localities. What we argue is that does it makes sense to force
adding an RDN with the localityName attribute or stateOrProvinceName attribute to the DN of a national-level entity?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">I had not participated in the early stage discussions of CAB Forum, therefore I just do not understand why CAB though it is so important to include the applicant's location of existence
or operation so that the BRs mandate at least one of the localityName attribute or stateOrProvinceName attribute must exist in the subject DN? I guess it is because the only Subject Identity Information that many commercial CAs can verify is whether the applicant
actually exists and is in operation and they have no way to guarantee the uniqueness of the subject DN because they have no link to the official registration database maintained by the government. Therefore, the CAB BRs simply leveraged the naming attributes
to indicate the identity and location of the applicant but avoid interpreting RDNs as "subordinate" relationships and do not guarantee the uniqueness of the subject DN.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">However, there are existing PKIs where the X.500 directory naming rules are endorsed by the government and CAs in the PKI have the authority to link to the official registration database
maintained by the government. Those PKIs actually provide better quality of subject identity information. I think the purpose of CAB forum is to improve the security of website identities, why not we embrace the subject identity information provided by these
existing PKIs if they would not cause any compatibility problems?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">As I mentioned, in the X.500 naming conventions, the DN of a national-level entity will not need to have a RDN with the localityName attribute or stateOrProvinceName attribute. For example,
the Executive Yuan (i.e., the Cabinet of our government) in the X.500 naming rules of Taiwan Government PKI (GPKI) will be:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">C=TW, O=Executive Yuan<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">This is unambiguous naming for Taiwan people because everybody knows that there is only one Executive Yuan in Taiwan.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">If you want to enforce adding a localityName in the DN of the Executive Yuan of Taiwan, the DN will looks like:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">C=TW, L=Taipei City, O=Executive Yuan<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">This is not only not suitable for the "subordinate" naming conventions of the X.500 but also misleading to Taiwan people. Besides, the executive yuan is a national-level entity, it has
many offices all over the country, and the question is which location should be added into its DN?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">I believe this is the same reason why in the Common Certificate Policy of US FPKI, the naming form of the Device names is defined as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">C=US, o=U.S. Government, [ou=department], [ou=agency], [ou=structural_container], cn=device name<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">With the X.500 naming conventions, the name form will not be:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">C=US, S="Washington, D.C. ", o=U.S. Government, [ou=department], [ou=agency], [ou=structural_container], cn=device name<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">In addition, I have seen some foreign CAs issuing SSL certificates to customers in Taiwan with strange Subject DNs. Their put improper values in the localityName attribute or stateOrProvinceName
attribute simply because the want to claim they comply the naming rules of the BRs. However, the values of the localityName attribute or stateOrProvinceName attribute are actually not meaningful or even misleading. For example, a subject DN might looks like
this:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">C = TW<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">S = Taichung<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">L = Taichung<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">O = COTA Commercial Bank<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">OU = ITD<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">This naming form comply the BRs, but ironically there is never a state or province name named "Taichung" in Taiwan. Is this the naming that CAB forum wants?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">I hope you can support my suggestion for the BRs to embrace the existing X.500 naming rules. We need just do a little change to the BRs, and then we do not need to enforce the existing
PKIs to break the X.500 naming rules and result some strange subject DNs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">Besides, please note in the beginning of section 3.2.2 of the BRs, it says:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">If the Applicant requests a Certificate that will contain Subject Identity Information comprised
<span style="color:red">only</span> of the countryName field, then the CA SHALL verify the country associated with the Subject using a verification process meeting the requirements of Section 3.2.2.3 and that is described in the CA's Certificate Policy and/or
Certification Practice Statement.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">Please not that it says "</span><span lang="EN-US">
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">Subject Identity Information comprised
<span style="color:red">only </span>of the countryName field " Does not that imply that the subject can be a national-level entity so that it can comprise only the countryName field and without </span><span style="font-family: "Courier New";">the localityName
attribute or stateOrProvinceName attribute</span><span style="font-family: "Courier New";">? However, the section 7.1.4.2.2 of the BRs mandates at least one of the localityName attribute or stateOrProvinceName attribute must exist in the subject DN. Isn't
that a conflict between Section 3.2.2.3 and Section 7.1.4.2.2?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New"">Wen-Cheng Wang<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<B><BR><BR><font size="-1">本信件可能包含中華電信股份有限公司機密資訊,非指定之收件者,請勿蒐集、處理或利用本信件內容,並請銷毀此信件.
如為指定收件者,應確實保護郵件中本公司之營業機密及個人資料,不得任意傳佈或揭露,並應自行確認本郵件之附檔與超連結之安全性,以共同善盡資訊安全與個資保護責任.
<BR>Please be advised that this email message (including any attachments) contains confidential information and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message and all attachments from your system and do not further collect, process, or use them. Chunghwa Telecom and all its subsidiaries and associated companies shall not be liable for the improper or incomplete transmission of the information contained in this email nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your system. If you are the intended recipient, please protect the confidential and/or personal information contained in this email with due care. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution of this message in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. Also, please self-inspect attachments and hyperlinks contained in this email to ensure the information security and to protect personal information.</font></B>
</body>
</html>