Host Identity Protocol Certificates
draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-10-12
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-09-29
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-09-21
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-09-06
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-09-02
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2016-09-02
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2016-09-01
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors |
2016-08-29
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-08-29
|
09 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-08-29
|
09 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-08-29
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2016-08-29
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2016-08-29
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-08-29
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-08-29
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-07-15
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. |
2016-07-07
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | The Secretariat will send a working group submission Protocol Action Announcement once draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis, draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis, and draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis are approved as well. |
2016-07-07
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2016-07-07
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Joel Jaeggli has been changed to No Record from No Objection |
2016-07-07
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-07-07
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-07-06
|
09 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2016-07-06
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] Quin Wu performed the opsdir reivew |
2016-07-06
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-07-06
|
09 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-07-06
|
09 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-07-06
|
09 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-07-06
|
09 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alexey Melnikov has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2016-07-06
|
09 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Personal preference: I like it when there is a table of content, as it allows me to quickly find a section such as … [Ballot comment] Personal preference: I like it when there is a table of content, as it allows me to quickly find a section such as "Differences from RFC 6253". And regarding this specific section, you have a nice disclaimer just to one "simple" change :-) I thought it was a template for a HIP bis document, but actually not (checked 5203, 5204, 5205). |
2016-07-06
|
09 | Benoît Claise | Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise |
2016-07-06
|
09 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-07-06
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-07-06
|
09 | Samu Varjonen | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2016-07-06
|
09 | Samu Varjonen | New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-09.txt |
2016-07-05
|
08 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] I agree with Alexey's discuss comment that the IANA considerations from the obsoleted RFC need to be pulled forward to this one. In … [Ballot comment] I agree with Alexey's discuss comment that the IANA considerations from the obsoleted RFC need to be pulled forward to this one. In my opinion, if the RFC is obsoleted, one should no longer need to read it. |
2016-07-05
|
08 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-07-05
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-07-05
|
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-07-04
|
08 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Why is MAY used int he error handling and not MUST or listing these actions as RECOMMENDED? Thanks for addressing the SecDir review: … [Ballot comment] Why is MAY used int he error handling and not MUST or listing these actions as RECOMMENDED? Thanks for addressing the SecDir review: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06366.html |
2016-07-04
|
08 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-07-04
|
08 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-07-02
|
08 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot discuss] I don't believe IANA Considerations section is correct: it points to a document that gets obsoleted by this one, yet the original document … [Ballot discuss] I don't believe IANA Considerations section is correct: it points to a document that gets obsoleted by this one, yet the original document creates new subregistries. This makes the status of earlier established registries unclear. I think you should copy the original IANA registration section in its entirety and clearly mark new allocations in it. |
2016-07-02
|
08 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] Subject DN doesn't necessarily identify a single certificate. But I am not sure whether this is a problem for HIP. |
2016-07-02
|
08 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-06-30
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2016-06-30
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2016-06-30
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Sean Turner. |
2016-06-23
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Sean Turner |
2016-06-23
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Sean Turner |
2016-06-22
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2016-06-20
|
08 | Terry Manderson | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2016-06-20
|
08 | Terry Manderson | Ballot has been issued |
2016-06-20
|
08 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2016-06-20
|
08 | Terry Manderson | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-06-20
|
08 | Terry Manderson | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-06-20
|
08 | Terry Manderson | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-07-07 |
2016-06-20
|
08 | Terry Manderson | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-04-22
|
08 | Samu Varjonen | New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-08.txt |
2016-04-11
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Qin Wu. |
2016-02-26
|
07 | Samu Varjonen | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2016-02-26
|
07 | Samu Varjonen | New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-07.txt |
2016-01-21
|
06 | Dan Romascanu | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. |
2016-01-07
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Sean Turner. |
2016-01-05
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Qin Wu |
2016-01-05
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Qin Wu |
2016-01-05
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Withdrawn' |
2015-12-28
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-12-28
|
06 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-06.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-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-06.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete. First, on the IANA Matrix and the HIP Certificate Types subregistry of the Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Parameters registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/hip-parameters/ all references to [RFC6253] will be changed to [ RFC-to-be ]. Second, the authors state that: " This document changes Certificate type registry in Section 2." The current HIP Certificate Types subregistry of the Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Parameters registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/hip-parameters/ is as follows: Type Cert Number Format Reference ------ ------------------------------ --------- 0 Reserved [RFC6253] 1 X.509 v3 [RFC6253] 2 SPKI [RFC6253] 3 Hash and URL of X.509 v3 [RFC6253] 4 Hash and URL of SPKI [RFC6253] 5 LDAP URL of X.509 v3 [RFC6253] 6 LDAP URL of SPKI [RFC6253] 7 Distinguished Name of X.509 v3 [RFC6253] Section 2 of the current document has a suggestion that certificate types are defined as follows: +--------------------------------+-------------+ | Cert format | Type number | +--------------------------------+-------------+ | Reserved | 0 | | X.509 v3 | 1 | | Hash and URL of X.509 v3 | 2 | | LDAP URL of X.509 v3 | 3 | | Distinguished Name of X.509 v3 | 4 | +--------------------------------+-------------+ IANA QUESTION --> Is it the authors intention to replace the existing registry completely? What is the authors' intentions regarding existing values in the registry? IANA understands that the two actions above are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document. IANA will not be able to complete the registry actions for this document until these issues have been resolved. 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 |
2015-12-28
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-12-22
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Rick Casarez |
2015-12-22
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Rick Casarez |
2015-12-17
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sean Turner |
2015-12-17
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sean Turner |
2015-12-15
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2015-12-15
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2015-12-14
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-12-14
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: hipsec@ietf.org, gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis@ietf.org, "Gonzalo Camarillo" , hip-chairs@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: hipsec@ietf.org, gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis@ietf.org, "Gonzalo Camarillo" , hip-chairs@ietf.org, terry.manderson@icann.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Host Identity Protocol Certificates) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Host Identity Protocol WG (hip) to consider the following document: - 'Host Identity Protocol Certificates' 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 2015-12-28. 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 The Certificate (CERT) parameter is a container for digital certificates. It is used for carrying these certificates in Host Identity Protocol (HIP) control packets. This document specifies the certificate parameter and the error signaling in case of a failed verification. Additionally, this document specifies the representations of Host Identity Tags in X.509 version 3 (v3). The concrete use cases of certificates, including how certificates are obtained, requested, and which actions are taken upon successful or failed verification, are specific to the scenario in which the certificates are used. Hence, the definition of these scenario- specific aspects is left to the documents that use the CERT parameter. This document updates RFC7401 and obsoletes RFC6253. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-12-14
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-12-14
|
06 | Terry Manderson | Last call was requested |
2015-12-14
|
06 | Terry Manderson | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-12-14
|
06 | Terry Manderson | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-12-14
|
06 | Terry Manderson | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-12-14
|
06 | Terry Manderson | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-12-09
|
06 | Samu Varjonen | New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-06.txt |
2015-11-25
|
05 | Bernie Volz | Request for Early review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Pascal Thubert. |
2015-11-24
|
05 | Bernie Volz | Request for Early review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen. |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Bernie Volz | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Pascal Thubert |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Bernie Volz | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Pascal Thubert |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Bernie Volz | Requested Early review by INTDIR |
2015-11-17
|
05 | Terry Manderson | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-11-08
|
05 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Document Writeup for draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-05 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … Document Writeup for draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-05 (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. This document is intended to obsolete RFC 6253, which was an Experimental RFC. (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 Certificate (CERT) parameter is a container for digital certificates. It is used for carrying these certificates in Host Identity Protocol (HIP) control packets. This document specifies the certificate parameter and the error signaling in case of a failed verification. Additionally, this document specifies the representations of Host Identity Tags in X.509 version 3 (v3) and Simple Public Key Infrastructure (SPKI) certificates. The concrete use cases of certificates, including how certificates are obtained, requested, and which actions are taken upon successful or failed verification, are specific to the scenario in which the certificates are used. Hence, the definition of these scenario- specific aspects is left to the documents that use the CERT parameter. This document extends RFC7401 and obsoletes RFC6253. Working Group Summary: There was WG consensus behind this document. Document Quality: As discussed in RFC 6538, there are several implementations of the Experimental HIP specs. At least HIP for Linux (HIPL) and OpenHIP will be updated to comply with the standards-track specs. The example in the RFC was tested with the HIPL implementation, which uses the openssl library. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Gonzalo Camarillo is the document shepherd. Terry Manderson is the responsible area director. (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 document shepherd reviewed revision 04 of this document, which was 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 WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concerns. (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? Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The whole WG understands the document and agree with it. Note that this is the revision of an existing RFC (i.e., a bis document). (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. The document contains no nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal reviews are needed. (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? No. (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 no downward normative references. (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 WG considers it unnecessary. This document will obsolete RFC 6253 and update RFC 7401. This is reflected on the title page header and the abstract. (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). The IANA Considerations Section is complete and consistent. (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. This document does not modify the allocation policy of any IANA registry. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No such checks were needed. |
2015-11-08
|
05 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Responsible AD changed to Terry Manderson |
2015-11-08
|
05 | Gonzalo Camarillo | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2015-11-08
|
05 | Gonzalo Camarillo | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-11-08
|
05 | Gonzalo Camarillo | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-11-08
|
05 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Changed document writeup |
2015-11-08
|
05 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Notification list changed to "Gonzalo Camarillo" <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com> |
2015-11-08
|
05 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Document shepherd changed to Gonzalo Camarillo |
2015-11-08
|
05 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-11-03
|
05 | Samu Varjonen | New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-05.txt |
2015-09-22
|
04 | Samu Varjonen | New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-04.txt |
2015-07-27
|
03 | Samu Varjonen | New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-03.txt |
2015-06-29
|
02 | Samu Varjonen | New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-02.txt |
2013-10-04
|
01 | Samu Varjonen | New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-01.txt |
2013-04-01
|
00 | Samu Varjonen | New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-00.txt |