ACME Challenges Using an Authority Token
draft-ietf-acme-authority-token-03
| The information below is for an old version of the document | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Document | Type | Expired Internet-Draft (acme WG) | |
| Last updated | 2019-09-26 (latest revision 2019-03-25) | ||
| Stream | IETF | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats |
Expired & archived
pdf
htmlized
bibtex
|
||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document (wg milestone: Apr 2020 - TNAuthlist submitted... ) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-acme-authority-token-03.txt
Abstract
Some proposed extensions to the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) rely on proving eligibility for certificates through consulting an external authority that issues a token according to a particular policy. This document specifies a generic Authority Token challenge for ACME which supports subtype claims for different identifiers or namespaces that can be defined separately for specific applications.
Authors
Jon Peterson
(jon.peterson@team.neustar)
Mary Barnes
(mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com)
David Hancock
(davidhancock.ietf@gmail.com)
Chris Wendt
(chris-ietf@chriswendt.net)
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)