Skip to main content

Additional New ASN.1 Modules for the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) and the Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX)
RFC 6268

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2018-03-14
08 Kathleen Moriarty Downref to RFC 6268 approved by Last Call for draft-turner-est-extensions-11
2015-10-14
08 (System) Notify list changed from jimsch@augustcellars.com, turners@ieca.com, draft-turner-additional-new-asn@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
08 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Stewart Bryant
2012-08-22
08 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu
2011-08-02
08 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue.
2011-07-29
08 (System) RFC published
2011-05-31
08 Stephen Farrell Responsible AD has been changed to Stephen Farrell from Tim Polk
2011-05-31
08 Stephen Farrell Intended Status has been changed to Informational from Proposed Standard
2011-03-29
08 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent.
2011-03-28
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2011-03-28
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2011-03-28
08 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2011-03-28
08 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2011-03-28
08 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2011-03-28
08 Amy Vezza Approval announcement text regenerated
2011-03-28
08 Amy Vezza State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup.
2011-03-28
08 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup text changed
2011-03-28
08 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stewart Bryant has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-03-28
08 (System) New version available: draft-turner-additional-new-asn-08.txt
2011-02-07
08 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2011-02-07
07 (System) New version available: draft-turner-additional-new-asn-07.txt
2011-02-06
08 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-02-03
08 Cindy Morgan Removed from agenda for telechat
2011-02-03
08 Cindy Morgan State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation.
2011-02-03
08 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot comment]
1. I support Stewart's DISCUSS

2. I think that the title of the document is too general and should be more specific - …
[Ballot comment]
1. I support Stewart's DISCUSS

2. I think that the title of the document is too general and should be more specific - e.g. 'Additional New ASN.1 Modules Using the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) format.
2011-02-03
08 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot discuss]
This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS. Should we not make a recommendation about using the 2008 version for documents including CMS format expressions in the …
[Ballot discuss]
This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS. Should we not make a recommendation about using the 2008 version for documents including CMS format expressions in the future?
2011-02-03
08 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-02-03
08 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
IMO, this should be PS *and* formally "Update" these other RFCs. See Stuart's discuss.

Section 6., paragraph 13:
>    --  Define each …
[Ballot comment]
IMO, this should be PS *and* formally "Update" these other RFCs. See Stuart's discuss.

Section 6., paragraph 13:
>    --  Define each of the MAC-ALGOIRTHM objects to describe the

  Nit: s/MAC-ALGOIRTHM/MAC-ALGORITHM/


Section 2., paragraph 1:
>    Protocol designers can make use of the '08 ASN.1 contraints to define

  Nit: s/contraints/constraints/
2011-02-03
08 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-03
08 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-03
08 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-02
08 Russ Housley
[Ballot comment]
Please consider the comments from the Gen-ART Review by Kathleen
  Moriarty on 5-JAN-2011.  You can found the review at:
 
    …
[Ballot comment]
Please consider the comments from the Gen-ART Review by Kathleen
  Moriarty on 5-JAN-2011.  You can found the review at:
 
    http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/
    draft-turner-additional-new-asn-06-moriarty.txt
2011-02-02
08 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-02
08 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-02
08 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
I support Stewart's Discuss.
Although the resultant long list of "updates" may be a nuisance to some, it is important for the person …
[Ballot comment]
I support Stewart's Discuss.
Although the resultant long list of "updates" may be a nuisance to some, it is important for the person who plans to update one of the other RFCs to know that this update exists.

---

I am a bit confused why the document talks about RFCs using the old (1988) syntax, but only describes the updates from 2002 to 2008.
2011-02-02
08 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-02
08 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-01
08 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
I support Stewart's DISCUSS in regards to updating other RFCs, in particular RFC 5911, which defined earlier versions of new style ASN.1 …
[Ballot comment]
I support Stewart's DISCUSS in regards to updating other RFCs, in particular RFC 5911, which defined earlier versions of new style ASN.1 modules.

I don't have much opinion regarding Informational versa PS, but I think PS would have been just fine.

Which tool was used to verify the new ASN.1?
2011-01-31
08 Robert Sparks
[Ballot comment]
For Stuart and Alexey: I raised very similar questions during the processing of
. This document is
following the same pattern that document …
[Ballot comment]
For Stuart and Alexey: I raised very similar questions during the processing of
. This document is
following the same pattern that document did.
2011-01-31
08 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-01-31
08 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
I support Stewart's DISCUSS in regards to updating other RFCs.

I have not much opinion regarding Informational versa PS, but I think PS …
[Ballot comment]
I support Stewart's DISCUSS in regards to updating other RFCs.

I have not much opinion regarding Informational versa PS, but I think PS would have been just fine.
2011-01-31
08 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-01-31
08 Stewart Bryant
[Ballot discuss]
This is a discuss discuss which I hope to clear on the call.

This document provided updated ASN.1 syntax for a number of …
[Ballot discuss]
This is a discuss discuss which I hope to clear on the call.

This document provided updated ASN.1 syntax for a number of standards track documents. I would like to discuss:

1) Should itself be a standards track document.
2) Whether this document should formally indicate that it updates those documents.
2011-01-31
08 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-01-30
08 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded
2011-01-30
08 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Tim Polk
2011-01-30
08 Tim Polk Ballot has been issued
2011-01-30
08 Tim Polk Created "Approve" ballot
2011-01-25
08 Tim Polk State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
2011-01-25
08 Tim Polk Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-02-03
2011-01-18
08 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Paul Hoffman.
2011-01-18
08 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call.
2011-01-11
08 Amanda Baber IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA
Actions that need completion.
2011-01-04
08 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Paul Hoffman
2011-01-04
08 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Paul Hoffman
2010-12-21
08 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2010-12-21
08 Amy Vezza
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org …
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Additional New ASN.1 Modules) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Additional New ASN.1 Modules'
  as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-01-18. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-additional-new-asn/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-additional-new-asn/
2010-12-21
08 Tim Polk Last Call was requested
2010-12-21
08 Tim Polk State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested.
2010-12-21
08 Tim Polk Last Call text changed
2010-12-21
08 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2010-12-21
08 (System) Last call text was added
2010-12-21
08 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2010-12-12
06 (System) New version available: draft-turner-additional-new-asn-06.txt
2010-12-12
05 (System) New version available: draft-turner-additional-new-asn-05.txt
2010-11-10
04 (System) New version available: draft-turner-additional-new-asn-04.txt
2010-11-09
03 (System) New version available: draft-turner-additional-new-asn-03.txt
2010-11-09
02 (System) New version available: draft-turner-additional-new-asn-02.txt
2010-11-08
08 Tim Polk Note field has been cleared by Tim Polk
2010-11-08
08 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? Tim Polk, sponsoring AD, is the document Shepherd for this document.  He has reviewed this version of the document and believes it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.   (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
        the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd
        have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed? The document has had adequate review by the authors and others.  The Document Shephard has no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews.   (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? The document has been reviewed by ASN.1 experts.  No other reviews seem to be called for.   (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 interested community has discussed those issues and has
        indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
        those concerns here. No.   (1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
        this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
        individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
        community as a whole understand and agree with it? The document represents a simple update on documents that had various levels of consensus.   (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent? If so, please summarise 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 Ie D nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
        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]. No.   (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 suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See
        [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. 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? Yes.   (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? Yes.   (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
        Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
        Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
        "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
        announcement contains the following sections:      Technical Summary         The document updates existing ASN.1 modules from the 1988
        specification to the 2008 specification.  This involves the
        use of previously defined classes as well as defining some
        new classes.  Some modules are revised from RFC 5911 to deal
        with addition separation that has been found to be required
        through use of these modules.     Working Group Summary         This document is not a product of any IETF Working Group.
        The document was presented to the PKIX Working Group and
        no opposition to publication was registered.      Document Quality         Portions of the document have been used by one of the
        authors in an implementation for CMS.
2010-11-08
08 Tim Polk
[Note]: '  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document
        and, in particular, …
[Note]: '  (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?

Tim Polk, sponsoring AD, is the document Shepherd for this document.  He has
reviewed this version of the document and believes it is ready for
forwarding to the IESG for publication.

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
        the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd
        have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed?

The document has had adequate review by the authors and others.  The
Document Shephard has no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews.

  (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?

The document has been reviewed by ASN.1 experts.  No other reviews seem to
be called for.


  (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 interested community has discussed those issues and has
        indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
        those concerns here.

No.


  (1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
        this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
        individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
        community as a whole understand and agree with it?

The document represents a simple update on documents that had various levels
of consensus.


  (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent? If so, please summarise 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 Ie D nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
        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].

No.


  (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 suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See
        [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. 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?

Yes.

  (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?

Yes.


  (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
        Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
        Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
        "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
        announcement contains the following sections:

     Technical Summary

        The document updates existing ASN.1 modules from the 1988
        specification to the 2008 specification.  This involves the
        use of previously defined classes as well as defining some
        new classes.  Some modules are revised from RFC 5911 to deal
        with addition separation that has been found to be required
        through use of these modules.

    Working Group Summary

        This document is not a product of any IETF Working Group.
        The document was presented to the PKIX Working Group and
        no opposition to publication was registered.

     Document Quality

        Portions of the document have been used by one of the
        authors in an implementation for CMS. ' added by Tim Polk
2010-11-08
08 Tim Polk Draft added in state Publication Requested by Tim Polk
2010-07-11
01 (System) New version available: draft-turner-additional-new-asn-01.txt
2010-03-01
00 (System) New version available: draft-turner-additional-new-asn-00.txt