<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body><div>Why don't we just require uniqueness instead of these misleading locality/state?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>M.D.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div id="composer_signature"><div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757" dir="auto">Sent from Samsung tablet.</div></div><div><br></div><div style="font-size:100%;color:#000000"><!-- originalMessage --><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Jeremy Rowley via Public <public@cabforum.org> </div><div>Date: 3/22/17 14:30 (GMT+01:00) </div><div>To: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>, CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org> </div><div>Cc: Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley@digicert.com> </div><div>Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Naming rules </div><div><br></div></div>There's one important item that seems unclear to me. What I took from reading Li Chun's message:<br><br>1) Taiwan has a country-level registration<br>2) Taiwan has a city-level registration<br>3) The two are not mutually exclusive (ie ABC Company at the country level might be a completely different entity than ABC Company at the city level)<br>4) You want the BRs to distinguish whether the ABC Company was registered with the country of Taiwan vs. a city registration.<br>5) If locality is included in a cert, the actions of ABC Company (country) could be falsely attributed to the ABC Company (local)<br><br>I can't tell if #3 is true. If it is, then I can see why we'd want to make the change. If #3 is not true, then the change is only for convenience in Taiwan.<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv@mozilla.org] <br>Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 12:13 PM<br>To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br>Cc: Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley@digicert.com><br>Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Naming rules<br><br>On 21/03/17 10:51, Jeremy Rowley via Public wrote:<br>> Despite the discussion today, I’m still not clear on why the cert <br>> can’t include locality information.<br><br>The short answer to this question is:<br><br>a) they want to use their existing X509 names, which don't include it<br>b) it's safe to not include it, because the entities concerned have all-Taiwan-unique names<br><br>Gerv<br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Public mailing list<br>Public@cabforum.org<br>https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public<br></body></html>