On Mar 17, 2017, at 4:55 PM, Kirk Hall via Public
<public@cabforum.org <mailto:public@cabforum.org>> wrote:
“***Given that ISO-3166 is actively maintained - thus your
recollection is, unfortunately, not correct or accurate - it would be
useful to understand why you see deviating from this, and what
problems you would believe it would solve.”
It appears you are unwilling to allow the BRs to deviate ISO-3166 –
correct?
If so, what other remedy is available to Dimitris to be able to use
C=EL for Greece instead of C=GR?
*From:*Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sle...@google.com]
*Sent:*Friday, March 17, 2017 4:36 PM
*To:*Kirk Hall <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com
<mailto:kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>>
*Cc:*CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org
<mailto:public@cabforum.org>>; Dimitris Zacharopoulos
<ji...@it.auth.gr <mailto:ji...@it.auth.gr>>
*Subject:*Re: [cabfpub] C=GR, C=UK exceptions in BRs
Hi Kirk,
Could you highlight where I said that? It would be useful to
understand what caused your confusion, as that's not what I said.
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Kirk Hall
<kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com
<mailto:kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>> wrote:
So there is your answer, Dimitris – Ryan thinks you must petition
ISO. Good luck with that.
*From:*Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sle...@google.com
<mailto:sle...@google.com>]
*Sent:*Friday, March 17, 2017 4:06 PM
*To:*Kirk Hall <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com
<mailto:kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>>
*Cc:*CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org
<mailto:public@cabforum.org>>; Dimitris Zacharopoulos
<ji...@it.auth.gr <mailto:ji...@it.auth.gr>>
*Subject:*Re: [cabfpub] C=GR, C=UK exceptions in BRs
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Kirk Hall
<kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com
<mailto:kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>> wrote:
Ryan makes a good point – where there is a conflict between
local law or practice (or desired practice) and the BRs, the
best first step is to amend the BRs to allow compliance with
local law or practice (or desired practice).
As I recall the country codes we are all stuck with were
created in the 1960s for a purpose unrelated to SSL and
digital certificates. There must have been a good reason for
representing the United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland
(for now), and Northern Ireland) as “GB” when Northern Island
(part of the UK) is not in Great Britain and UK is the more
generally known acronym for the United Kingdom – but I can’t
imagine what the good reason was.
Instead of a ballot that presents a sweeping new structure
for country names, or points to another new document, maybe
we just create an Appendix to the BRs that allows different
country codes for Greece and the United Kingdom (as an
alternative). We would endorse such a ballot.
Can you explain why?
That is - Why you would endorse such a ballot? Why you believe
the Forum should change?
I appreciate that you highlighted your unfamiliarity with the
history of why these country codes exist, or what their values
should be, as this serves as a useful reminder to highlight the
notion of Chesterton's Fence, named after the poet-philosopher
G.K. Chesterton.
While you can find many resources on this topic, perhaps it's
worthwhile to quote theWikipedia entry on him
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton> that explains
this concept:
Chesterton's fence is the principle that reforms should not be
made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is
understood. The quotation is from Chesterton’s 1929 book The
Thing: Why I am a Catholic, in the chapter entitled "The Drift
from Domesticity": "In the matter of reforming things, as
distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple
principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox.
There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us
say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a
road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and
says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away." To
which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to
answer: "If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let
you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come
back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you
to destroy it."
I think that we would be opposed to such a ballot until details
can be provided that hopefully satisfy this simple request. In my
reply, which it sounds like you agree with, I highlighted the
problem that the existing Baseline Requirements are trying to
address. It's unclear to me whether you understood, but
disagreed, with my statement, or whether you simply misread it.
Given that ISO-3166 is actively maintained - thus your
recollection is, unfortunately, not correct or accurate - it
would be useful to understand why you see deviating from this,
and what problems you would believe it would solve.
I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this very simple
request.
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org <mailto:Public@cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
