Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cacert-policy - Re: [CAcert-Policy] Brainstorming Session on Names

Subject: Policy-Discussion

List archive

Re: [CAcert-Policy] Brainstorming Session on Names

Chronological Thread 
  • From: Iang <iang AT>
  • To: Policy-Discussion <cacert-policy AT>
  • Subject: Re: [CAcert-Policy] Brainstorming Session on Names
  • Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:58:05 +0200
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-id: Policy-Discussion <>

Guillaume ROMAGNY wrote:

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.


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page