X.509 Key and Signature Encoding for the KeyNote Trust Management System
RFC 5708
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2020-01-21
|
02 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag) |
2018-12-20
|
02 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This memo describes X.509 key identifiers and signature encoding for version 2 of the KeyNote trust-management … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This memo describes X.509 key identifiers and signature encoding for version 2 of the KeyNote trust-management system (RFC 2704). X.509 certificates (RFC 5280) can be directly used in the Authorizer or Licensees field (or in both fields) in a KeyNote assertion, allowing for easy integration with protocols that already use X.509 certificates for authentication. In addition, the document defines additional signature types that use other hash functions (beyond the MD5 and SHA1 hash functions that are defined in RFC 2792). This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.') |
2015-10-14
|
02 | (System) | Notify list changed from angelos@cs.columbia.edu, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org |
2012-08-22
|
02 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Tim Polk |
2012-08-22
|
02 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lars Eggert |
2010-01-25
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
2010-01-25
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5708' added by Cindy Morgan |
2010-01-24
|
02 | (System) | RFC published |
2009-12-10
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2009-10-15
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2009-10-14
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2009-10-14
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2009-10-13
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2009-10-12
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2009-10-12
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2009-10-12
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2009-10-12
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2009-10-08
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2009-10-08
|
02 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Tim Polk |
2009-10-08
|
02 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Lars Eggert |
2009-10-08
|
02 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2009-10-07
|
02 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2009-10-07
|
02 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
2009-10-07
|
02 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot discuss] [edited] The draft header says "Intended Status: Proposed". This should be Informational. Section 7., paragraph 1: > Per [KEYNOTE], IANA should provide … [Ballot discuss] [edited] The draft header says "Intended Status: Proposed". This should be Informational. Section 7., paragraph 1: > Per [KEYNOTE], IANA should provide a registry of reserved algorithm > identifiers. The following identifiers are reserved by this document > as public key identifier encodings: Does this registry exist or does this draft intend to remind IANA that this registry should still be created? If the latter, and assuming that IANA wants to do this for a non-IETF protocol, there is information missing here (and from [KEYNOTE]) as to what the allocation policies are. |
2009-10-07
|
02 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot discuss] The draft header says "Intended Status: Proposed". This should be Informational. |
2009-10-07
|
02 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2009-10-06
|
02 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2009-10-06
|
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2009-10-02
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov |
2009-10-02
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] Some minor editorial suggestions: 1). RFC 3280 --> RFC 5280 2). Add a reference for base64 - RFC 4648 |
2009-09-23
|
02 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments at http://www.iana.org/assignments/keynote/keynote.xhtml ACTION 1: Registry Name: KeyNote Public Key Format Identifiers Identifier … IANA comments: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments at http://www.iana.org/assignments/keynote/keynote.xhtml ACTION 1: Registry Name: KeyNote Public Key Format Identifiers Identifier Reference ----------- -------------------------- x509-hex [RFC-keromytis-keynote-x509-02] x509-base64 [RFC-keromytis-keynote-x509-02] ACTION 2: Registry Name: KeyNote Signature Algorithm Identifiers Identifier Reference -------------------------- -------------------------- sig-x509-sha1-hex [RFC-keromytis-keynote-x509-02] sig-x509-sha1-base64 [RFC-keromytis-keynote-x509-02] sig-x509-sha256-hex [RFC-keromytis-keynote-x509-02] sig-x509-sha256-base64 [RFC-keromytis-keynote-x509-02] sig-x509-sha512-hex [RFC-keromytis-keynote-x509-02] sig-x509-sha512-base64 [RFC-keromytis-keynote-x509-02] sig-x509-ripemd160-hex [RFC-keromytis-keynote-x509-02] sig-x509-ripemd160-base64 [RFC-keromytis-keynote-x509-02] sig-rsa-sha256-hex [RFC-keromytis-keynote-x509-02] sig-rsa-sha256-base64 [RFC-keromytis-keynote-x509-02] sig-rsa-sha512-hex [RFC-keromytis-keynote-x509-02] sig-rsa-sha512-base64 [RFC-keromytis-keynote-x509-02] sig-rsa-ripemd160-hex [RFC-keromytis-keynote-x509-02] sig-rsa-ripemd160-base64 [RFC-keromytis-keynote-x509-02] |
2009-09-22
|
02 | Tim Polk | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Publication Requested by Tim Polk |
2009-09-22
|
02 | Tim Polk | Telechat date was changed to 2009-10-08 from 2009-09-24 by Tim Polk |
2009-09-18
|
02 | Tim Polk | [Ballot discuss] This document is an example where there is no conflict and no need to clarify the relationship with IETF specifications. While I have … [Ballot discuss] This document is an example where there is no conflict and no need to clarify the relationship with IETF specifications. While I have proposed a standard 3932 IESG note in the tracker, I am advocating publication without any IESG note whatsoever. |
2009-09-18
|
02 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Discuss from Yes by Tim Polk |
2009-09-18
|
02 | Tim Polk | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-09-24 by Tim Polk |
2009-09-18
|
02 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Tim Polk |
2009-09-18
|
02 | Tim Polk | Ballot has been issued by Tim Polk |
2009-09-18
|
02 | Tim Polk | Created "Approve" ballot |
2009-09-18
|
02 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2009-09-18
|
02 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2009-09-18
|
02 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2009-09-15
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-09-24 by Cindy Morgan |
2009-09-15
|
02 | Russ Housley | Responsible AD has been changed to Tim Polk from Russ Housley |
2009-09-15
|
02 | Russ Housley | Area acronymn has been changed to sec from gen |
2009-09-15
|
02 | Russ Housley | State Change Notice email list have been change to angelos@cs.columbia.edu, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org from angelos@cs.columbia.edu, draft-keromytis-keynote-x509@tools.ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org |
2009-09-15
|
02 | Russ Housley | Note field has been cleared by Russ Housley |
2009-09-14
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | This document was submitted to the RFC Editor to be published as an Informational Independent Submission: draft-keromytis-keynote-x509-02.txt. Please let us know if this document conflicts … This document was submitted to the RFC Editor to be published as an Informational Independent Submission: draft-keromytis-keynote-x509-02.txt. Please let us know if this document conflicts with the IETF standards process or other work being done in the IETF community. Four week timeout expires on 12 October 2009. X.509 Key and Signature Encoding for the KeyNote Trust Management System This memo describes X.509 key identifiers and signature encoding for version 2 of the KeyNote trust-management system [KEYNOTE]. X.509 certificates [RFC3280] can be directly used in the Authorizer or Licensees field (or in both fields) in a KeyNote assertion, allowing for easy integration with protocols that already use X.509 certificates for authentication. In addition, the document defines additional signature types that use other hash functions (beyond the MD5 and SHA1 hash functions that are defined in [RFC2792]). NOTE: The draft lists the intended status as "Proposed." However, the document has been requested for publication as an Informational RFC. We will update the document to reflect "Informational" when/if it is accepted for publication. |
2009-09-14
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
2009-03-30
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-keromytis-keynote-x509-02.txt |
2008-10-01
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-keromytis-keynote-x509-01.txt |
2008-04-02
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-keromytis-keynote-x509-00.txt |