Steve, you still haven't convinced me regarding the need for
CAs for residential persons. But to be fair, I'll give you some
ammunition.
On Dec. 30, you said:
Well, Bob, you and I (and Steve Dusse) really do differ over
having a state represented as a CA along the path. I agree that it
would be nicer if states would step up to the task and perform this
function, but I am not holding my breath. I argue that with suitable
disclaimers in the PCA policy statement, nobody will confuse a
residential CA with a state government organization. The idea is that
even though your "I. M. Somebody in Beantown" example is exactly what
1422 requires from a certification path standpoint, what would be
displayed is just the PCA DN (or local alisas thereof) and the user Dn
(or local alias thereof). The state CA need not be displayed and I
recommend against displaying it on a regular basis, for fear of
overwhelming the user. (There is a requirement that the user be able
to request a full path display, but that should be done rarely.)
I began to think about this this morning, and I believe that there shouldn't
be any confusion in any case. We haven't talked about, and I haven't
even thought much about the naming of governmental agencies and
organizations, particularly at the state level, but we (I) may have been
guilty of confusing the map with the territory, or the geopolitical boundary
with the government OF that geopolitical unit.
Following our previous guidelines of asking whether an organization is
registered at a national level, I would submit that the use of the State=MA
qualifier to refer to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would be unnecessary!
Instead, the proper way to address the Governor of Massachusetts for
official business would be:
C=US,O=Commonwealth of Massachusetts,CN=William Weld,Title=Governor
The following would be OK but redundant:
C=US,S=MA,O=Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
CN=William Weld,Title=Governor
But by this logic the following would be wrong:
C=US,S=MA,CN=William Weld,Title=Governor
The point that I am making is that the state or province attribute should be
viewed as a geographical qualification, NOT as a naming authority per se,
and certainly not as a substitute for the governing body (organization)
of that state.
Carrying this example a little further, we would have
C=US, S=OH, O=City of Columbus, OU=City Council, CN=Joe Doaks,
Title=Mayor
and this would be differentiated from
C=US, S=GA, O=City of Columbus, OU=City Council, CN=Joe Doaks,
Title=Mayor
In these two cases we have two individuals (presumably not the same)
who are named Joe Doaks and both happen to be mayors, one of
Columbus, Ohio, and the other of Columbus, Georgia.
The only city which would be implicity registered at the national level would
be
Washington, DC, which of course would like to be a state. Therefore
C=US, O="City of Columbus, Ohio" would require that the city council of
Columbus, Ohio, register with ANSI as though they were a corporation.
This would probably be unnecessarily confusing.
However, at the state level, cities and towns, etc. are explicitly registered
with the state govenment, usually by incorporation, although that doesn't
make them a corporation in the normal sense (at least I don't think so).
What we have here is an illustration of an implied naming authority.
The overall naming authority for the US is not the United States Government
itself, but rather ANSI, as agreed to BY the USG.
Likewise, the implied naming authority within a state is normally the Secretary
of State of that state or the equivalent office that registers corporations,
certifies the existance of towns, charters cities, etc. (I'm on a little shaky
ground here - if there are some experts in state governments out there, feel
free to correct me.)
The next level naming authority would be at the locality level - the City
Council,
Board of Aldermen, Board of Selectmen, or whatever other arcane term
is used to designate either a county or city/town government that has the
right to name STREETS, at least.
Notice that the Post Office does not name streets. Therefore, IMHO, a
Post Office branch name (which often designates a local area) should not be
used as a locality name, unless that name is in fact the name of an
incorporated city or town.
This may be making a too-subtle point, but I am trying to force a certain
amount of consistancy here.
I'll grant that since the postal service recognizes its own branch name,
it can deliver the mail to Acton, West Acton, South Acton, etc. But I'm
suggesting that the use of the locality attribute be reserved to established
governmental organizations and quasi-naming authorities, not just to designate
a ZIP code or branch office. In particular, if the post office sets up a new
branch and splits an old ZIP code into two different ones, my complete mailing
address may change, but my locality and street name haven't.
When we used to live in Montgomery Village, outside of Gaithersburg, MD, we
were outside of the city of Gaithersburg, in Montgomery county. Following
the above logic, our residential address could have been
C=US,S=MD, locality=Montgomery County, streetAddress="19355 Frenchton
Place"
or perhaps (if a streeAddress can contain a city and ZIP)
C=US,S=MD, streetAddress="19355 Frenchton Place, Gaithersburg, MD 20760"
But the following would be considered incorrect
C=US,S=MD,locality=Gaithersburg,streetAddress="19355 Frenchton Place"
since we did not live in the incorporated town of Gaithersburg.
Does this all hang together, so far?
BTW: I don't mean for this to be a monolog, or even just a dialog between
Steve and myself. In particular, it would be easy for us to fall into a
US-centric
trap, and ignore naming conventions used in other countries. I know relatively
little about the Canadian post office, especially in the territories, and even
less
about Mexico, but after NAFTA this may become increasingly important. I would
also encourage the European community to supply corresponding example or
even counterexamples from their country. And if there are any readers in Japan
or in other Asian countries, naming considerations in your country would
also be welcome.
Bob
Warning - if you thought this message was bad, wait for the next one!
How do we deal with nomadic people, especially including residential persons
who happen to be in the Army, Navy, etc., and only have APO or FPO addresses?