Skip to main content

Alternative Certificate Formats for the Public-Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) Certificate Management Protocols
RFC 4212

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:


From: The IESG <>
To: RFC Editor <>
Cc: The IESG <>, <>,
Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: 

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Alternative Certificate 
Formats for the PKIX Certificate Management Protocols' 
<draft-adams-cmpaltcert-07.txt> as an Informational RFC. 

The IESG would also like the IRSG or RFC-Editor to review the comments in 
the datatracker 
related to this document and determine whether or not they merit 
incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot 
and the comment log. 

The IESG contact person is Russ Housley.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:

The process for such documents is described at

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

  The PKIX (Public Key Infrastructure using X.509) Working Group of the
  has defined a number of certificate management protocols.  These
  protocols are primarily focused on X.509v3 public key certificates.
  However, it is sometimes desirable to manage certificates in
  alternative formats as well.  This document specifies how such
  certificates may be requested using the CRMF (Certificate Request
  Message Format) syntax that is used by several different protocols.
  It also explains how alternative certificate formats may be
  incorporated into such popular protocols as PKIX-CMP (PKIX Certificate
  Management Protocol) and CMC (Certificate Management Messages over

End-run Check

  This document was reviewed by Russ Housley for the IESG.


  This document is not a candidate for any level of Internet
  Standard.  The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this
  document for any purpose, and in particular notes that it has not
  had IETF review for such things as security, congestion control or
  inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols.  The RFC Editor
  has chosen to publish this document at its discretion.  Readers of
  this document should exercise caution in evaluating its value for
  implementation and deployment.

RFC Editor Note