[cabfpub] ISO 3166-1 country codes

[William Madell]

That’s a good point, Eddy - and it echoes your previous question about ‘where do we draw the line?’

 

My thinking, however, is that we need to explicitly define each allowable ‘user-defined’ alpha-2 designation within the BRs – as and when they crop up.  That should give us granular oversight of the process and allow us to consider each new addition on a case-by-cases basis. 

 

An explicit guideline should also help avoid situations of non-uniformity, whereas a non-explicit guideline in the BRs could allow (for example) StartCom to decide on ‘XK’ as the alpha-2 for Kosovo, while Trustis assigns ‘XV’ for Kosovo, Comodo assigns ‘XO’, etc., etc.  Each CA’s arbitrary designation might meet the requirements of a non-explicit guideline, but it wouldn’t provide the uniformity across CAs that is necessary for the Relying Parties.

 

Regards,
Bill

 

 

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.)
Sent: 01 August 2012 12:27
Cc: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] ISO 3166-1 country codes

 


On 08/01/2012 02:04 PM, From William Madell: 

So, the above should give us ‘centralised’ governance of the use of XK via the BRs (which is what you want) as well as providing its defined usage to Relying Parties (which is what Eddy wants) via the CP/CPS.


Well...if there must be exceptions, than an errata shouldn't mention any specific entity, but a general guideline about how to handle it (if at all). Otherwise why Kosovo and not Tibet, Basque, Chechnia and more...




Regards 


 


Signer: 

Eddy Nigg, COO/CTO


 

StartCom Ltd. <http://www.startcom.org> 


XMPP: 

startcom at startcom.org


Blog: 

Join the Revolution! <http://blog.startcom.org> 


Twitter: 

Follow Me <http://twitter.com/eddy_nigg> 


 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20120801/5e5efbde/attachment.html