Skip to main content

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