Skip to main content

Clarification and enhancement of RFC7030 CSR Attributes definition
draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-16

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2025-02-07
16 David Dong IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned
2025-02-06
16 David Dong IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned
2025-02-06
16 Jenny Bui IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2025-02-06
16 Jenny Bui
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-02-20):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs@ietf.org, housley@vigilsec.com, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, spasm@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-02-20):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: debcooley1@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs@ietf.org, housley@vigilsec.com, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, spasm@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Clarification and enhancement of RFC7030 CSR Attributes definition) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Limited Additional Mechanisms for
PKIX and SMIME WG (lamps) to consider the following document: -
'Clarification and enhancement of RFC7030 CSR Attributes definition'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2025-02-20. 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 updates RFC7030 (EST) and clarifies how the CSR
  Attributes Response can be used by an EST server to specify both CSR
  attribute OIDs and also CSR attribute values, in particular X.509
  extension values, that the server expects the client to include in
  subsequent CSR request.

  The Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST, RFC7030) is ambiguous in
  its specification of the CSR Attributes Response.  This has resulted
  in implementation challenges and implementor confusion.  As a result
  of some of the implementation challenges, it came to light that the
  particular way of that RFC7030 (EST) says to use the CSR attributes
  was not universally agreed upon.

  This document therefore also provides a new straightforward approach:
  using a template for CSR contents that may be partially filled in by
  the server.  This also allows an EST server to specify a subject
  Distinguished Name (DN).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2025-02-06
16 Jenny Bui IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2025-02-06
16 Jenny Bui Last call announcement was generated
2025-02-06
16 Deb Cooley Last call was requested
2025-02-06
16 Deb Cooley Last call announcement was generated
2025-02-06
16 Deb Cooley Ballot approval text was generated
2025-02-06
16 Deb Cooley IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2025-02-06
16 (System) Changed action holders to Deb Cooley (IESG state changed)
2025-02-06
16 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2025-02-06
16 Michael Richardson New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-16.txt
2025-02-06
16 (System) New version approved
2025-02-05
16 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dan Harkins , David von Oheimb , Michael Richardson , Owen Friel
2025-02-05
16 Michael Richardson Uploaded new revision
2025-01-28
15 Deb Cooley comments can be found here:  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/WfAtwrK1e_2DyYte4k9OcAtX5eE/
2025-01-28
15 (System) Changed action holders to Dan Harkins, Michael Richardson, Owen Friel, David von Oheimb (IESG state changed)
2025-01-28
15 Deb Cooley IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2025-01-25
15 Deb Cooley IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2025-01-25
15 Deb Cooley Ballot writeup was changed
2025-01-18
15 Russ Housley
Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-15


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why is this the …
Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-15


(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.  Yes, the header calls for Standards Track.
 
  This new RFC will update RFC 7030, which is a Proposed Standard.
 

(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:

  This document updates RFC 7030 to clarify the handling of Certificate
  Signing Request (CSR) attributes in Enrollment over Secure Transport
  (EST).  This document describes how an EST server specifies the CSR
  attribute types (object identifiers) and also CSR attribute values,
  especially X.509 extension values, that the EST server expects the
  client to include in subsequent CSRs.

  Working Group Summary:

    There is consensus for this document in the LAMPS WG.

  Document Quality:

    EST has wide support.  Several people have expressed support of
    the clarifications in this document.  Great care was taken to ensure
    that the conventions specified in this document do not break current
    implementations of RFC 7030.
 
  Personnel:

    Russ Housley is the document shepherd.
    Deb Cooley 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 did a thorough review of the document during
  WG Last Call.  All issues were raised and resolved.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No concerns.


(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.

  Several people that were involved in the PKIX WG were part of the
  review that took place during LAMPS WG Last Call.


(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?

  The authors have explicitly stated that they are unaware of any
  additional IP that was introduced in the updates to the document.

  The authors have explicitly stated that they do not hold any IPR
  related to the document.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?  If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No IPR disclosures were issued against RFC 7030 or this document.


(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?

  There is consensus for this document in the LAMPS WG.


(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 one has threatened an appeal.


(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.

  This document, once it is approved, will update RFC 7030.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No special 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.

  There are downward normative reference to Informational RFC 5911,
  Informational RFC 5912, and Informational RFC 6268.  All of these
  are already in the downref registry, so no special action is needed
  for them.


(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 new RFC will update RFC 7030, which is clearly stated on the
  title page 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 ASN.1 module in Appendix A of this document makes use of object
  identifiers (OIDs).
 
  This document requests that IANA register an OID in the SMI Security
  for PKIX Arc in the Module identifiers arc (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.0) for
  the ASN.1 module.
 
  This document requests that IANA register two OIDs in the SMI Security
  for S/MIME attributes arc (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.2) for two newly
  specified attributes.


(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 needed.


(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.

  The ASN.1 module in Appendix A properly compiles.
2025-01-18
15 Russ Housley IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2025-01-18
15 Russ Housley IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2025-01-18
15 (System) Changed action holders to Deb Cooley (IESG state changed)
2025-01-18
15 Russ Housley Responsible AD changed to Deb Cooley
2025-01-18
15 Russ Housley Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2025-01-18
15 Russ Housley Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2025-01-18
15 Russ Housley IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2025-01-18
15 Russ Housley Notification list changed to housley@vigilsec.com because the document shepherd was set
2025-01-18
15 Russ Housley Document shepherd changed to Russ Housley
2025-01-18
15 Russ Housley
Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-15


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why is this the …
Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-15


(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.  Yes, the header calls for Standards Track.
 
  This new RFC will update RFC 7030, which is a Proposed Standard.
 

(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:

  This document updates RFC 7030 to clarify the handling of Certificate
  Signing Request (CSR) attributes in Enrollment over Secure Transport
  (EST).  This document describes how an EST server specifies the CSR
  attribute types (object identifiers) and also CSR attribute values,
  especially X.509 extension values, that the EST server expects the
  client to include in subsequent CSRs.

  Working Group Summary:

    There is consensus for this document in the LAMPS WG.

  Document Quality:

    EST has wide support.  Several people have expressed support of
    the clarifications in this document.  Great care was taken to ensure
    that the conventions specified in this document do not break current
    implementations of RFC 7030.
 
  Personnel:

    Russ Housley is the document shepherd.
    Deb Cooley 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 did a thorough review of the document during
  WG Last Call.  All issues were raised and resolved.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No concerns.


(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.

  Several people that were involved in the PKIX WG were part of the
  review that took place during LAMPS WG Last Call.


(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?

  The authors have explicitly stated that they are unaware of any
  additional IP that was introduced in the updates to the document.

  The authors have explicitly stated that they do not hold any IPR
  related to the document.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?  If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No IPR disclosures were issued against RFC 7030 or this document.


(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?

  There is consensus for this document in the LAMPS WG.


(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 one has threatened an appeal.


(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.

  This document, once it is approved, will update RFC 7030.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No special 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.

  There are downward normative reference to Informational RFC 5911,
  Informational RFC 5912, and Informational RFC 6268.  All of these
  are already in the downref registry, so no special action is needed
  for them.


(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 new RFC will update RFC 7030, which is clearly stated on the
  title page 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 ASN.1 module in Appendix A of this document makes use of object
  identifiers (OIDs).
 
  This document requests that IANA register an OID in the SMI Security
  for PKIX Arc in the Module identifiers arc (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.0) for
  the ASN.1 module.
 
  This document requests that IANA register two OIDs in the SMI Security
  for S/MIME attributes arc (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.2) for two newly
  specified attributes.


(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 needed.


(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.

  The ASN.1 module in Appendix A properly compiles.
2025-01-08
15 Michael Richardson New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-15.txt
2025-01-08
15 Michael Richardson New version approved
2025-01-08
15 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dan Harkins , David von Oheimb , Michael Richardson , Owen Friel
2025-01-08
15 Michael Richardson Uploaded new revision
2025-01-08
14 Michael Richardson New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-14.txt
2025-01-08
14 Michael Richardson New version approved
2025-01-08
14 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dan Harkins , David von Oheimb , Michael Richardson , Owen Friel
2025-01-08
14 Michael Richardson Uploaded new revision
2025-01-06
13 Russ Housley Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2025-01-06
13 Russ Housley IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2025-01-06
13 Russ Housley IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2024-11-06
13 Michael Richardson New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-13.txt
2024-11-06
13 Michael Richardson New version approved
2024-11-06
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dan Harkins , David von Oheimb , Michael Richardson , Owen Friel
2024-11-06
13 Michael Richardson Uploaded new revision
2024-10-11
12 Russ Housley Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2024-09-06
12 Michael Richardson New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-12.txt
2024-09-06
12 Michael Richardson New version approved
2024-09-06
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dan Harkins , David von Oheimb , Michael Richardson , Owen Friel
2024-09-06
12 Michael Richardson Uploaded new revision
2024-09-03
11 Michael Richardson New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-11.txt
2024-09-03
11 Michael Richardson New version approved
2024-09-03
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dan Harkins , David von Oheimb , Michael Richardson , Owen Friel
2024-09-03
11 Michael Richardson Uploaded new revision
2024-07-10
10 Russ Housley Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2024-07-10
10 Russ Housley IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2024-06-23
10 Michael Richardson New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-10.txt
2024-06-23
10 Michael Richardson New version approved
2024-06-23
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dan Harkins , David von Oheimb , Michael Richardson , Owen Friel
2024-06-23
10 Michael Richardson Uploaded new revision
2024-06-23
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dan Harkins , David von Oheimb , Michael Richardson , Owen Friel
2024-06-23
10 Michael Richardson Uploaded new revision
2024-04-04
09 Michael Richardson New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-09.txt
2024-04-04
09 (System) New version approved
2024-04-04
08 Lars Eggert Request for Early review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Lars Eggert. Sent review to list.
2024-04-04
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dan Harkins , David von Oheimb , Michael Richardson , Owen Friel
2024-04-04
09 Michael Richardson Uploaded new revision
2024-04-03
08 Valery Smyslov Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Valery Smyslov. Sent review to list.
2024-03-30
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Valery Smyslov
2024-03-28
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Early review by GENART is assigned to Lars Eggert
2024-03-26
08 Russ Housley Requested Early review by GENART
2024-03-26
08 Russ Housley Requested Early review by SECDIR
2024-03-03
08 Michael Richardson New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-08.txt
2024-03-03
08 Michael Richardson New version approved
2024-03-03
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dan Harkins , David von Oheimb , Michael Richardson , Owen Friel
2024-03-03
08 Michael Richardson Uploaded new revision
2023-10-10
07 Michael Richardson New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-07.txt
2023-10-10
07 Michael Richardson New version approved
2023-10-10
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dan Harkins , David von Oheimb , Michael Richardson , Owen Friel
2023-10-10
07 Michael Richardson Uploaded new revision
2023-08-01
06 Michael Richardson New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-06.txt
2023-08-01
06 Michael Richardson New version approved
2023-08-01
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dan Harkins , David von Oheimb , Michael Richardson , Owen Friel
2023-08-01
06 Michael Richardson Uploaded new revision
2023-07-09
05 Michael Richardson New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-05.txt
2023-07-09
05 Michael Richardson New version approved
2023-07-09
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dan Harkins , David von Oheimb , Michael Richardson , Owen Friel
2023-07-09
05 Michael Richardson Uploaded new revision
2023-06-15
04 Michael Richardson New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-04.txt
2023-06-15
04 Michael Richardson New version approved
2023-06-15
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dan Harkins , David von Oheimb , Michael Richardson , Owen Friel
2023-06-15
04 Michael Richardson Uploaded new revision
2023-06-15
03 Michael Richardson New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-03.txt
2023-06-15
03 Michael Richardson New version approved
2023-06-15
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dan Harkins , David von Oheimb , Michael Richardson , Owen Friel
2023-06-15
03 Michael Richardson Uploaded new revision
2023-05-26
02 Roman Danyliw Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2023-04-08
02 Michael Richardson New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-02.txt
2023-04-08
02 Michael Richardson New version approved
2023-04-08
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dan Harkins , David von Oheimb , Michael Richardson , Owen Friel
2023-04-08
02 Michael Richardson Uploaded new revision
2023-04-03
01 (System) Document has expired
2023-03-21
01 Russ Housley Added to session: IETF-116: lamps  Wed-0030
2022-09-30
01 Michael Richardson New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-01.txt
2022-09-30
01 Michael Richardson New version approved
2022-09-30
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dan Harkins , David von Oheimb , Michael Richardson , Owen Friel
2022-09-30
01 Michael Richardson Uploaded new revision
2022-09-16
00 Jenny Bui This document now replaces draft-richardson-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs instead of None
2022-08-15
00 Russ Housley Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2022-08-15
00 Michael Richardson New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-00.txt
2022-08-15
00 Russ Housley WG -00 approved
2022-08-15
00 Michael Richardson Set submitter to "Michael Richardson ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: lamps-chairs@ietf.org
2022-08-15
00 Michael Richardson Uploaded new revision