Alternative Certificate Formats for the Public-Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) Certificate Management Protocols
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: RFC Editor <email@example.com> Cc: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-adams-cmpaltcert-07.txt The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Alternative Certificate Formats for the PKIX Certificate Management Protocols' <draft-adams-cmpaltcert-07.txt> as an Informational RFC. The IESG would also like the IRSG or RFC-Editor to review the comments in the datatracker (https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=5509&rfc_flag=0) related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the comment log. The IESG contact person is Russ Housley. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-adams-cmpaltcert-07.txt The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html. Thank you, The IESG Secretary
Technical Summary The PKIX (Public Key Infrastructure using X.509) Working Group of the has defined a number of certificate management protocols. These protocols are primarily focused on X.509v3 public key certificates. However, it is sometimes desirable to manage certificates in alternative formats as well. This document specifies how such certificates may be requested using the CRMF (Certificate Request Message Format) syntax that is used by several different protocols. It also explains how alternative certificate formats may be incorporated into such popular protocols as PKIX-CMP (PKIX Certificate Management Protocol) and CMC (Certificate Management Messages over CMS). End-run Check This document was reviewed by Russ Housley for the IESG. IESG Note This document is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this document for any purpose, and in particular notes that it has not had IETF review for such things as security, congestion control or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion. Readers of this document should exercise caution in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment.