<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body><div>If auditor of the CA is aware of national registry, no need in any other knowledge.</div><div><br></div><div>Proof of non-existance in this case would be government decision or law about establishing centralised registry.</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: Ryan Sleevi via Public <public@cabforum.org> </div><div>Date: 3/24/17 23:29 (GMT+01:00) </div><div>To: Ben Wilson <ben.wilson@digicert.com> </div><div>Cc: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>, public@cabforum.org </div><div>Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Naming rules </div><div><br></div></div><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Ben Wilson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ben.wilson@digicert.com" target="_blank">ben.wilson@digicert.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_-5219126247951975966WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><a name="m_-5219126247951975966__MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I don’t have an answer for that one except let the CA assert that it is uniquely identifiable and let the auditor examine it.</span></a></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Right, the issue is that unless the auditor of each CA is aware of the other CAs (or, more aptly, of all CAs), this cannot be effectively audited. That is, it requires a proof of non-existence, except one cannot be provided. </div></div></div></div>
</body></html>