Alternative Challenge Password Attributes for Enrollment over Secure Transport
draft-wallace-est-alt-challenge-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-06-02
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-06-01
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-05-17
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-05-03
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-05-02
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2016-05-02
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-04-28
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-04-28
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-04-28
|
08 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-04-28
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-04-28
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2016-04-28
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2016-04-28
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-04-28
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-04-28
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-04-13
|
08 | Carl Wallace | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2016-04-13
|
08 | Carl Wallace | New version available: draft-wallace-est-alt-challenge-08.txt |
2016-03-23
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov. |
2016-03-17
|
07 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2016-03-17
|
07 | Carl Wallace | New version available: draft-wallace-est-alt-challenge-07.txt |
2016-03-17
|
06 | Carl Wallace | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2016-03-17
|
06 | Carl Wallace | New version available: draft-wallace-est-alt-challenge-06.txt |
2016-03-17
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2016-03-17
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] completely agree with respect to the downref issue. just be done with it. |
2016-03-17
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot comment text updated for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-03-17
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-03-17
|
05 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-03-17
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] Elwyn's Gen-ART review brought up a downref issue which Stephen suggest we handle as follows: > 2985 is a normative reference in 5750 … [Ballot comment] Elwyn's Gen-ART review brought up a downref issue which Stephen suggest we handle as follows: > 2985 is a normative reference in 5750 which is standards track > so I think we can safely claim precedent and I can put 2985 in the > downref registry if nobody objects. Which I think is fine. |
2016-03-17
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-03-16
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2016-03-16
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-03-16
|
05 | Elwyn Davies | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. |
2016-03-16
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-03-16
|
05 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-03-16
|
05 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2016-03-15
|
05 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-03-15
|
05 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2016-03-15
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] There are 3 DownRefs that were not called out in the Last Call (only one of them appears in the registry). |
2016-03-15
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-03-14
|
05 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot comment] Thank you for a concise and clearly written document as a individual submission. |
2016-03-14
|
05 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2016-03-14
|
05 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2016-03-11
|
05 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-03-10
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2016-03-10
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2016-03-09
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-03-17 |
2016-03-09
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-03-09
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2016-03-09
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot has been issued |
2016-03-09
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-03-09
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-03-09
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-03-09
|
05 | Carl Wallace | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2016-03-09
|
05 | Carl Wallace | New version available: draft-wallace-est-alt-challenge-05.txt |
2016-03-07
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2016-03-01
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-03-01
|
04 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-wallace-est-alt-challenge-04.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-wallace-est-alt-challenge-04.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete. First, SMI Security for S/MIME Attributes (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.2) subregistry of the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/ three new attributes are to be registered as follows: Decimal: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: id-otpChallenge Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Decimal: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: id-revocationChallenge Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Decimal: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: id-estIdentityLinking Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. If there is no expert designated for the registry, we will work with the IESG to have one assigned. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC. Second, in the SMI Security for PKIX Module Identifier subregistry also in the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/ a single new identifier isto be registered as follows: Decimal: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: EST-Alt-Challenge-Module Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC. IANA understands that the two actions above are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
2016-02-28
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Rick Casarez. |
2016-02-13
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Rick Casarez |
2016-02-13
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Rick Casarez |
2016-02-11
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2016-02-11
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2016-02-11
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2016-02-11
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2016-02-08
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-02-08
|
04 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: pkix@ietf.org, draft-wallace-est-alt-challenge@ietf.org, housley@vigilsec.com, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: pkix@ietf.org, draft-wallace-est-alt-challenge@ietf.org, housley@vigilsec.com, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Alternative Challenge Password Attributes for Enrollment over Secure Transport) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Alternative Challenge Password Attributes for Enrollment over Secure Transport' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-03-07. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document defines a set of new Certificate Signing Request attributes for use with the Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST) protocol. These attributes provide disambiguation of the existing overloaded uses for the PKCS #9 challengePassword attribute. Uses include the original certificate revocation password, common authentication password uses, and EST-defined linking of transport security identity. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wallace-est-alt-challenge/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wallace-est-alt-challenge/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-02-08
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-02-08
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | Last call was requested |
2016-02-08
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-02-08
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-02-08
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2016-02-08
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-02-08
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard is requested for this Internet-Draft. This is appropriate given the I-D is a minor augmentation to an existing Standards Track RFC. The type is indicated in the title page header. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary The document defines a new set of attributes to disambiguate overloaded using of the PKCS #9 challengePassword attribute. The new attributes retain the structure of the existing attribute but are identified by new object identifiers. Working Group Summary The document was discussed on the PKIX mailing list. Since the PKIX working group is no longer active, this document is proceeding as an individual submission. Document Quality There are no fielded implementations yet, but at least one is in development. Other vendors have expressed interest. The lack of existing implementations is not a cause for concern due to the nature of the document, which is essentially defining a few new object identifiers. The Document Shepherd is Russ Housley. The responsible Area Director is Stephen Farrell. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The rationale for the new object identifiers was the primary focus of the review. The basis for supported alternative challenge password mechanisms to the one defined in RFC 7030 is well founded. The document is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. I have no concerns with this document. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Each author has confirmed that no IPR disclosures need to be filed. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been filed. (9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it? There is solid consensus amongst a small group of interested parties. There have been no objections raised from the broader community associated with RFC 7030. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits were identified, aside from a normative downref described below. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review is required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? There are no normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. The document contains a reference to RFC 5912, which is Informational. In this context, the downref is appropriate as it incorporates current ASN.1 definitions. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the interested community considers it unnecessary. This document will not change the status of any existing RFC. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). Each of the requested new object identifier values were reviewed. The requested arcs for these values are appropriate. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No new IANA registries are requested by this document. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. The ASN.1 module in Appendix A (with temporary object identifiers inserted) was checked using a commercial ASN.1 syntax checker, and no issues were found. |
2016-02-06
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | Notification list changed to pkix@ietf.org |
2016-02-06
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2016-02-06
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-11-06
|
04 | Carl Wallace | New version available: draft-wallace-est-alt-challenge-04.txt |
2015-11-06
|
03 | Carl Wallace | New version available: draft-wallace-est-alt-challenge-03.txt |
2015-10-18
|
02 | Carl Wallace | New version available: draft-wallace-est-alt-challenge-02.txt |
2015-10-17
|
01 | Carl Wallace | New version available: draft-wallace-est-alt-challenge-01.txt |
2015-10-16
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | Notification list changed to "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com> |
2015-10-16
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | Document shepherd changed to Russ Housley |
2015-10-16
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | Shepherding AD changed to Stephen Farrell |
2015-10-16
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-10-16
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | Stream changed to IETF from None |
2015-08-03
|
00 | Carl Wallace | New version available: draft-wallace-est-alt-challenge-00.txt |