Policy-Discussion

[Iang <iang AT iang.org>]

Guillaume ROMAGNY wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Teus Hagen a écrit :
> > We are dealing with two or three problems here:
> > 1. strings in the name which can be the same. Usually those characters 
> > are coded in some set, like the umlaut, etc. Philipp summarized some 
> > examples using his family name.
> >     Would a by CAcert accepted table help here to solve this? If so a 
> > matching can be done by the software?
>
> As you propose in the next paragraph, we could have an extra field in
> the DB for "normalized" full(?) names. This field could be filled by the
> user & displayed to the assurers. Also, the user could select this
> alternate field for any certificate request.
>
> So we don't need to handle many complex rules. The user and assurers
> handles the stuff to know if the 2 names matches


If there are 2 names, why not 3?  From a systems pov, I
would be annoyed by a "bi-name" extension, it's likely to be
most of the work and only a part of the problem.


> > 3. names can change and you want to keep old names there: so here is an 
> > argument to allow more as one name. Adding names to be done via an 
> > assurance/dispute?
>
> so, this case is handled (only if a newly married woman is not german =>
> she would need 2 alternate fields one for german, one for her name of
> birth vs. name of her husband)


Funnily enough, my mother has three formal last names.  When
I recently had to go for new dox, I had to show all three
and provide proof.

A quick straw poll:  Who here has One Perfect Single Name on 
all documents, and who here has more than one?

I have two, the variation being the middle initial.



So, as a general principle, it would seem that people can
have more than one valid name?  Have we established that?

(It may be that we establish a principle ... to find that 
the code and assurance systems can't deal with ... but 
that's ok, get the principles established first.)



Then we have the issue that if I have multiple names, and I
"decide" to add another one, does the assurance process have
to catch up?

It might seem that each *name* should be assured, at least 
to the minimum level, before being offered as an option for 
a cert?

In Assurance Statement terms, this might say that the 
Name(s) of the Individual have been Assured to a Level.




iang