The application/pkix-attr-cert Media Type for Attribute Certificates
draft-ietf-pkix-attr-cert-mime-type-03
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
03 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Pasi Eronen |
2010-04-02
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2010-03-22
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2010-03-22
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2010-03-12
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2010-03-12
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2010-03-12
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2010-03-12
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2010-03-12
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2010-03-12
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2010-03-12
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2010-03-05
|
03 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-03-04 |
2010-03-04
|
03 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Pasi Eronen |
2010-03-04
|
03 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2010-03-04
|
03 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
2010-03-03
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2010-03-03
|
03 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
2010-03-03
|
03 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2010-03-03
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Rob Austein. |
2010-03-02
|
03 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2010-03-02
|
03 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot discuss] A quick question: should this document point to RFC 5755 (which obsoletes 3281), or is the reference to 3281 intentional? |
2010-03-02
|
03 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2010-03-01
|
03 | Tim Polk | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Tim Polk |
2010-03-01
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] The RFC Editor notes appear to have been implemented in the latest revision. |
2010-03-01
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
2010-02-28
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2010-02-22
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pkix-attr-cert-mime-type-03.txt |
2010-02-22
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alexey Melnikov has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-02-22
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] |
2010-02-22
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot discuss] |
2010-02-20
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] The following reference doesn't seem to be used: [RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data … |
2010-02-20
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot discuss] I was about to vote No Objection, but then I noticed the following: 2. IANA Considerations Encoding considerations: 8bit RFC … [Ballot discuss] I was about to vote No Objection, but then I noticed the following: 2. IANA Considerations Encoding considerations: 8bit RFC 4288, Section 4.8 says: 8bit: The content of the media type consists solely of CRLF-delimited 8bit text. binary: The content consists of unrestricted sequence of octets. I think you want "binary" here, as BER is not "CRLF-delimited 8bit text". |
2010-02-20
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-02-18
|
03 | Tim Polk | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-03-04 by Tim Polk |
2010-01-27
|
03 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Tim Polk |
2010-01-27
|
03 | Tim Polk | Ballot has been issued by Tim Polk |
2010-01-27
|
03 | Tim Polk | Created "Approve" ballot |
2009-11-28
|
03 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2009-11-23
|
03 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignment in the "Application Media Types" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/ pkix-attr-cert [RFC-pkix-attr-cert-mime-type-02] |
2009-11-11
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rob Austein |
2009-11-11
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rob Austein |
2009-11-07
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
2009-11-07
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan |
2009-11-07
|
03 | Tim Polk | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Tim Polk |
2009-11-07
|
03 | Tim Polk | Last Call was requested by Tim Polk |
2009-11-07
|
03 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2009-11-07
|
03 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2009-11-07
|
03 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2009-11-07
|
03 | Tim Polk | Intended Status has been changed to Informational from None |
2009-11-07
|
03 | Tim Polk | [Note]: 'Shepherd is Steve Kent <kent@bbn.com>' added by Tim Polk |
2009-11-07
|
03 | Tim Polk | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Stephen Kent is the document shepherd for this document, has personally reviewed this version of the document and believes this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has received adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members. The ietf-types mailing list was notified about this document (http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2009-October/002258.html), and suggested changes received from that list were incorporated into this version of the document. There are no concerns regarding the depth or breath of the reviews that have been performed. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. There are no specific concerns to highlight to the AD or IESG. No IPR disclosures have been filed related to this document. (1.e) 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? Only a few PKIX members really care about this tiny document, as it addresses a very narrow topic. However, those that do care are comfortable with the document. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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 strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. References have been split into normative and informative sections. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The I-D has an IANA Considerations section that calls for registration of a MIME content type. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? Not applicable. (1.k) 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 Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? Technical Summary This document defines a MIME content type (application/pkix-attr-cert) for carrying an attribute certificate [RFC 3281]. This content type is needed to enable transport of attribute (as opposed to public-key) certificates) via protocols that make use of MIME encoding, e.g., HTTP. Working Group Summary The working group expressed consensus to approve this document as an informational RFC. Document Quality The document is very brief (only 4 pages, including all, of the boilerplate) and well-written. |
2009-11-07
|
03 | Tim Polk | Draft Added by Tim Polk in state Publication Requested |
2009-11-07
|
03 | Tim Polk | [Note]: 'Shepherd is Steve Kent ' added by Tim Polk |
2009-10-05
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pkix-attr-cert-mime-type-02.txt |
2009-09-11
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pkix-attr-cert-mime-type-01.txt |
2009-08-11
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pkix-attr-cert-mime-type-00.txt |