<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body><div>In fact Rich is correct within a government managed registry the C field is unique - therefore its not in the registry, its has a constant value for all registry records.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm still curiuos why a CA, being aware of a publicly accessible government managed registry, would ever use 'another registry' presumably with the same content.</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: 3/28/17 17:25 (GMT+02:00) </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">If that's the ballot that folks would like to go forward with, then let's just find endorsers and vote. We can vote on flawed proposals - at least we know how people feel about those flaws, which is useful in itself.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:20 AM, 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_-8742243315542256579WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><a name="m_-8742243315542256579__MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Ryan,<u></u><u></u></span></a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I suppose you are unwilling to suggest language that would correct this perceived flaw in the proposal?<u></u><u></u></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Ben<u></u><u></u></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></span></p><span></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"> Public [mailto:<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public-bounces@<wbr>cabforum.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Ryan Sleevi via Public<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 28, 2017 8:17 AM<br><b>To:</b> Rich Smith <<a href="mailto:richard.smith@comodo.com" target="_blank">richard.smith@comodo.com</a>><span class=""><br><b>Cc:</b> Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" target="_blank">sleevi@google.com</a>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Naming rules<u></u><u></u></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Rich Smith <<a href="mailto:richard.smith@comodo.com" target="_blank">richard.smith@comodo.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p><div><div class="h5"><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"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Ryan, Ben’s wording states that the registry is at the national level, so rather than talking about Jurisdiction A and B, the labels are correctly Country A and Country B, therefore even if every other field in the registries were the same the C field will always be unique to the particular registry, therefore the particular entries between the registries would be unique. Am I missing something?</span><u></u><u></u></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Yes, there's no guarantee the C field is unique for the registry.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">As a thought experiment, consider a country that participates in multiple international treaties that allow for X.500 registries.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">As a thought experiment, consider a country that provides a naming ontology for its international partners.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">As a thought experiment, consider multiple national government organizations adopting their own X.500 DIT.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">The assumption here, which is incorrect in the lens of history, is that the X.500 DIT exists and disambiguates these countries.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">I am in resounding agreement with Peter - either we should put forward a ballot or we should stop discussing this further.<u></u><u></u></p></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</body></html>