<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>One alternative is to just drop the criterion, and then it doesn’t create an issue. “This field is also optional if the Relative Distinguished Name (RDN) matches the RDN of an organization’s registration in a national-government-adopted X.500 directory that does not contain the localityName attribute.”<o:p></o:p></span></a></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0174C3'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0174C3'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, March 24, 2017 10:28 PM<br><b>To:</b> Moudrick M. Dadashov <md@ssc.lt><br><b>Cc:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org>; Ben Wilson <ben.wilson@digicert.com><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Naming rules<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Indeed, but as security specialists, we must think about the hypothetical scenarios that the rules permit - because very quickly, whether we intend to or not, we find them made manifest and causing issue. This is, of course, specific to proposals that make broad exceptions, and highlight the need to be specific in the guidance, rather than assume it won't happen.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:22 PM, Moudrick M. Dadashov <<a href="mailto:md@ssc.lt" target="_blank">md@ssc.lt</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Indeed, we are talking about two different things - I refer to government managed registries where D1 and D2 will maintain only data objects under their respective control.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The case that a country can maintain a registry overlaping with (native) data objects of another jurisdiction sounds quite hypothetical.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>M.D.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div id="m_-4862289812829316957composer_signature"><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#575757'>Sent from Samsung tablet.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>-------- Original message --------<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>From: Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" target="_blank">sleevi@google.com</a>> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Date: 3/25/17 01:39 (GMT+01:00) <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>To: "Moudrick M. Dadashov" <<a href="mailto:md@ssc.lt" target="_blank">md@ssc.lt</a>> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>>, Ben Wilson <<a href="mailto:ben.wilson@digicert.com" target="_blank">ben.wilson@digicert.com</a>> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Naming rules <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Jurisdiction A defines an independent directory tree (D1).<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Jurisdiction B defines an independent directory tree (D2).<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>D1 uses the naming scheme defined by Jurisdiction A<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>D2 uses the naming scheme defined by Jurisdiction B.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Unless you know all of the laws regarding Jurisdiction A, B, C, ... Z, and can make an effective declaration that no jurisdiction exists that defines a directory tree (D0) that conflicts with either D1 or D2, then you cannot assert that D1 or D2 are unique.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 8:31 PM, Moudrick M. Dadashov <<a href="mailto:md@ssc.lt" target="_blank">md@ssc.lt</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Ryan, can you give an example of 'cross-jurisdictional directory trees'?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>M.D.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div id="m_-4862289812829316957m_-1807730034059743165composer_signature"><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#575757'>Sent from Samsung tablet.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>-------- Original message --------<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>From: Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" target="_blank">sleevi@google.com</a>> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Date: 3/25/17 01:15 (GMT+01:00) <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>To: "Moudrick M. Dadashov" <<a href="mailto:md@ssc.lt" target="_blank">md@ssc.lt</a>> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>>, Ben Wilson <<a href="mailto:ben.wilson@digicert.com" target="_blank">ben.wilson@digicert.com</a>> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Naming rules <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Moudrick M. Dadashov <<a href="mailto:md@ssc.lt" target="_blank">md@ssc.lt</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Auditor examine it through the same government adopted registry.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>In fact if government has a centralised register, there is a very little chance that the same data catogories will be maintained in two different resources - duplication of responsibilitiies is prohibited by law.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>M.D.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Moudrick,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I'm sorry, but it may not have been clear, I was talking about cross-jurisdictional directory trees. There's nothing that would ensure their unambiguous uniqueness here, and as proposed, two entities could have X.500 DITs that reflected both _their_ jurisdiction and, more importantly, how _their_ jurisdiction views other jurisdictions.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I believe you've misunderstood this to be about a single jurisdiction, but I was not talking about that. Auditors would have to be aware of all jurisdictions - and more importantly, all jurisdictional laws that apply or are relevant for CAs. This is much like the can of worms related to 9.16.3 in which some laws or registries only apply to specific participants.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>So while your responses would be correct for a single jurisdiction, that's not the issue :)<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>