Liaison statement
Liaison to IETF on the resolution of DR320

State Posted
Posted Date 2007-10-05
From Group ITU-T-SG-17
From Contact Xiaoya Yang
To Group pkix
To Contacts Russ Housley
Stefan Santesson
CcHerbert Bertine
Response Contact Xiaoya YANG
Technical Contact
Purpose For action
Deadline 2008-03-01 Action Taken
Attachments (None)
At our recent ITU-T SG17 meeting in Geneva we discussed and rejected Defect
Report 320 ( from
AFNOR.  This DR advanced an argument that Distinguished Names may not be
unique and as such, the DN of the Certificate User may not be unique.
The directory group believes that Distinguished Name values must be unique and
unambiguously identify a single entity, hence the use of the term
The DR states “the DN of the issuer name cannot be guaranteed to be
unique�.  X.509 takes its definition of DN from X.501.  Clause 9.2 of X.501
specifies the definition of DistinguishedName.  This clause states A name
shall be unambiguous, that is, denotes just one object.
Clause 9 goes on to state: It is the responsibility of the relevant naming
authority for an entry to ensure that this is so by appropriately assigning
distinguished attribute values.  Allocation of RDNs is considered an
administrative undertaking that may or may not require some negotiation
between involved organizations or administrations.  This Directory
Specification does not provide such a negotiation mechanism, and makes no
assumption as to how it is performed.
The standard takes an axiomatic view of the concept that a distinguished name
unambiguously identifies a single entity.  Things break if two entities
identify themselves using the same name.  We don't let two entities have the
same domain name or the same email address.  Why? - because things wouldn't
The directory group does not accept the DR’s basic argument.  We believe
that if two entities present the same name and a CA issues a certificate to
each, that CA made a mistake - not a naming authority mistake, since a CA is
not an naming authority (although one entity can be both), but an entity to
key binding mistake that leads to confusion and even worse, a security risk.
We believe that if two entities claim the same name as top level CAs, there is
a political/procedural breakdown much like the domain ownership arguments we
have seen.  No one argues that the Internet protocols should be modified to
solve that problem.  The conflict is resolved and one entity is assigned the
name.  The group believes that this is the only reasonable solution for
Distinguished Naming.  One votes for the CA of choice by configuring it as an
One of the participants in the directory meeting stated that Certification
Authorities are being deployed with names not acquired from naming authorities
but with names arbitrarily chosen assuming that no other CA is or will be
operating under that name.  That participant further stated that the IETF
provides no guidelines on ensuring that the names of CAs are unambiguous.
The directory group requests the IETF PKIX group to comment on this statement.
 If the statement is correct, we ask the IETF to consider putting a mechanism
in place to prevent conflict, e.g. a list of existing CA names that deployers
of new CAs could check for naming conflicts.