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 |