Trust Anchor Format
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <firstname.lastname@example.org>, RFC Editor <email@example.com>, pkix mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, pkix chair <email@example.com> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Trust Anchor Format' to Proposed Standard The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Trust Anchor Format ' <draft-ietf-pkix-ta-format-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509) Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Tim Polk and Pasi Eronen. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pkix-ta-format-04.txt
Technical Summary This document describes a structure for representing trust anchor information. A trust anchor is an authoritative entity represented by a public key and associated data. The public key is used to verify digital signatures and the associated data is used to constrain the types of information or actions for which the trust anchor is authoritative. The structures defined in this document are intended to satisfy the format-related requirements defined in Trust Anchor Management Requirements. Working Group Summary This document entered the working group following the Trust Anchor Management BOF. Initially, the contents were includes in the Trust Anchor Management (TAMP) I-D, which presented trust anchor format and trust anchor management protocol specifications in a single document. The working group favored separate documents for protocol specification and format specification. This I-D contains the latter. The draft was not particularly controversial, but a number of significant changes resulted from working group discussion, including support for additional formats. There was one noteworthy issue raised that did not result in any change in the document. It has been noted that the ta-format has some overlap with the ETSI Trust Status List which is specified in ETSI TS 102 231, although the goals of each specification are significantly different. The wg briefly debated whether some comparison of the two schemes should be included. In the end, the wg decided that TSL need not be addressed. Document Quality The document is well-written and clear. I have been told that there is an open source implementation in progress. The most common format used to represent a trust anchor today is a self-signed certificate and this format is accommodated in this standard. Personnel Steve Kent is the Document Shepherd for this document. Tim Polk is the Responsible Area Director. RFC Editor Note In section 2.4, please make the following substitution: OLD When taTitleLangTag is absent, English is used. NEW When taTitleLangTag is absent, English ("en" language tag) is used.