Skip to main content

The application/pkix-attr-cert Media Type for Attribute Certificates
RFC 5877

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
03 (System) Notify list changed from pkix-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pkix-attr-cert-mime-type@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
03 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Pasi Eronen
2010-05-06
03 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2010-05-06
03 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 5877' added by Amy Vezza
2010-05-05
03 (System) RFC published
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
      …
[Ballot comment]
The following reference doesn't seem to be used:

  [RFC4648]  Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
              Encodings", RFC 4648, October 2006.
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