Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile
RFC 5280

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>,
    RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, 
    pkix mailing list <ietf-pkix@imc.org>, 
    pkix chair <pkix-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Internet X.509 Public Key 
         Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) 
         Profile' to Proposed Standard 

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate 
   Revocation List (CRL) Profile '
   <draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3280bis-12.txt> as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509) 
Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Sam Hartman and Tim Polk.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3280bis-12.txt

Technical Summary
 
   This document is a replacement for RFC 3280, the standard that
   profiles X.509 certificate and CRL syntax for use in the IETF. RFC
   3280 needed to be updated to track IETF support for internationalized
   names, to correct errors that have been discovered since the
   publication of 3280 five years ago. As part of the update, the
   specification of the AIA certificate extension (an IETF "private"
   extension) was incorporated into the document, instead of being a
   standalone RFC. (4325). The document also updates the reference to the
   list of supported algorithms used with certificates. The authors made
   a minor modification to the text to make clear that hash algorithms
   other than SHA-1 can be used in certain places, consistent with
   Security Area policy to make all of our standards independent of
   specific hash algorithms. The security considerations section was
   expanded, to cal attention to more subtle (DoS) concerns that may
   arise in some contexts. Despite the numerous tweaks and fixes,  most
   of the text in this document is unchanged form 3280. The end of the
   introduction section  of this document clearly summarizes the
   differences between it and RFC 3280.

 
Working Group Summary
 
   The working group had consensus to advance this specification as a
proposed standard.
 
Protocol Quality
 
   This specification was reviewed for the IESG by Sam Hartman.