<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/3/2017 8:02 πμ, Ryan Sleevi
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACvaWvY5OcsG=8ncWesi2BXR6vzhMBncg=vLuzX==bAWwht7TA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 1:08 AM,
Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Public <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:public@cabforum.org"
target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>></span>
wrote:
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> The same might
apply to Government agencies in the UK. Kirk, thank you
for the support. If members have no strong objections
about these two exceptions, we might introduce them in a
future ballot.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">To be clear: I think we'd strongly
object for the reasons given ("because they want to"), and for
the issues previously highlighted.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">I support further discussion of this,
and in particular, if there are any better reasons that can be
articulated, as the current one is not sufficient relative to
the trade-offs and problems it introduces. I welcome further
information that you might be able to share about this.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Let me try to provide some reasons in favor of allowing these two
exceptions.<br>
<ol>
<li>For reasons unrelated to the CA/B Forum (political or whatever
non-technical reasons), two EU Countries have been using
different two-letter Country Identifiers in addition to the ones
listed in ISO3166-1. These exceptions have been well-defined in
legal EU documents, like the <a
href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32015D1505">1505/2015</a>
implementing decision. Since these exceptions are used
Internationally, are well-defined and globally recognized, it
makes sense to allow them to be used in the webPKI as well.</li>
<li>Introducing these well-defined exceptions pose no security
threat because these identifiers are already known for so long.
AFAIU, by adding these two exceptions, no significant problems
have been identified so far in the discussion. Please note that
I am not suggesting "replacing C=GR with C=EL and C=GB with
C=UK" but allowing all of them to be acceptable.</li>
<li>There may be legal reasons for some official government
agencies to be represented by using C=EL or C=UK in the subject
field. Should the Forum prevent that? Should the Forum question
these reasons?<br>
</li>
</ol>
<p>I don't know if the Greek government has contacted ISO3166 in
order to add some text that makes an "exceptional reservation"
notice for "EL" but would this change anything? I mean "UK" is
already marked as "exceptionally reserved" but it's still not
allowed in the current BRs.<br>
</p>
<p>I am not sure what more would you expect for this conflict to be
resolved. The Forum has been notified about this conflict and
should decide (according to the last paragraph of 9.16.3) whether
to consider possible revisions or dismiss this issue.<br>
</p>
BTW, I tried to find the latest official version of ISO3166-1 but it
is not free, so if anyone has it and can provide any possible
references to C=EL, I'd be happy to hear.<br>
<br>
<br>
Dimitris.<br>
</body>
</html>