ACME Challenges Using an Authority Token
draft-peterson-acme-authority-token-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Jon Peterson , Mary Barnes , David Hancock , Chris Wendt | ||
| Last updated | 2018-09-06 (Latest revision 2018-03-05) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
A number of proposed challenges for the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) effectively rely on an external authority issuing a token according to a particular policy. This document specifies a generic Authority Token challenge for ACME which supports subtype claims different identifiers or namespaces that can be defined to represent a specific application of this Authority Token challenge.
Authors
Jon Peterson
Mary Barnes
David Hancock
Chris Wendt
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)