Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: Yoav Nir <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Subject: Protocol Action: 'Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-acme-acme-18.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)' (draft-ietf-acme-acme-18.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Automated Certificate Management Environment Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Benjamin Kaduk and Eric Rescorla. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-acme/
Summary Richard Barnes, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews, and James Kasten are the authors. Yoav Nir is the document shepherd. Eric Rescorla is the responsible Area Director. Certificates in PKI using X.509 (PKIX) are used for a number of purposes, the most significant of which is the authentication of domain names. Thus, certificate authorities in the Web PKI are trusted to verify that an applicant for a certificate legitimately represents the domain name(s) in the certificate. Today, this verification is done through a collection of ad hoc mechanisms. This document describes a protocol that a certification authority (CA) and an applicant can use to automate the process of verification and certificate issuance. The protocol also provides facilities for other certificate management functions, such as certificate revocation. Review and Consensus This document represents the consensus of the ACME working group. The draft has been the main document of the group for the last two years, and has been through WGLC since February 2017. Much of the discussion since then has been feedback from commercial CAs about integrating the protocol with their processes. Several of them are now committed to deploy this protocol following publication. Most of the session in IETF 99 was devoted to verifying that there are no more open issues for this draft. Intellectual Property The authors have stated that they do not have any IPR related to this document, and that they are not aware of any IPR claims made by others about the content of this document. Other Points None IANA Note The following registries are established with a "specification required" per RFC8126: 1. ACME Account Object Fields (Section 9.7.1) 2. ACME Order Object Fields (Section 9.7.2) 3. ACME Error Types (Section 9.7.3) 4. ACME Resource Types (Section 9.7.4) 5. ACME Identifier Types (Section 9.7.5) 6. ACME Challenge Types (Section 9.7.6) Entries are requested to be added to the following registries: "Media Types", "Well-Known URIs", "Message Headers", "JSON Web Signature and Encryption Header Parameters", "JSON Web Signature and Encryption Header Parameters", and "IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol Parameter Identifiers"