Object Identifiers for Test Certificate Policies
RFC 7229
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
00 | (System) | Notify list changed from housley@vigilsec.com, draft-housley-pkix-test-oids@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2014-05-08
|
00 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2014-05-07
|
00 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7229">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2014-05-07
|
00 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7229">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR |
|
2014-04-21
|
00 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
|
2014-03-14
|
00 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
|
2014-03-05
|
00 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
|
2014-03-03
|
00 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from On Hold |
|
2014-03-03
|
00 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF from EDIT |
|
2014-03-02
|
00 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to On Hold from In Progress |
|
2014-02-27
|
00 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2014-02-27
|
00 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
|
2014-02-26
|
00 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
|
2014-02-26
|
00 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
|
2014-02-26
|
00 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
|
2014-02-26
|
00 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
|
2014-02-26
|
00 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2014-02-26
|
00 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2014-02-26
|
00 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2014-02-25
|
00 | Sean Turner | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2014-02-20
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from Waiting for Writeup |
|
2014-02-20
|
00 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
|
2014-02-20
|
00 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
|
2014-02-20
|
00 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] From the Gen-ART review by Francis Dupont: - typo 3 page 2: ... The actual polices used for production certificates has … [Ballot comment] From the Gen-ART review by Francis Dupont: - typo 3 page 2: ... The actual polices used for production certificates has a significant impact ^ BTW if the word is policies than has -> have |
|
2014-02-20
|
00 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
|
2014-02-20
|
00 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
|
2014-02-19
|
00 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
|
2014-02-19
|
00 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
|
2014-02-19
|
00 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
|
2014-02-18
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
|
2014-02-18
|
00 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
|
2014-02-18
|
00 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
|
2014-02-18
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - To be honest, I'm not clear why this was needed really but I guess it was part of some NIST test suite … [Ballot comment] - To be honest, I'm not clear why this was needed really but I guess it was part of some NIST test suite work and its fine to record that. Anyway, once the OIDs are assigned for this, then recording it is correct. - I'd suggest s/has a/can have a/ in the 2nd sentence in section 3. - section 4: are these OIDs going to be part of the new PKIX IANA OID registries? I assume so and they'll be registered for that via some other document? Would it be nice to also name that IANA registry here though? (At the expense of holding this up until that is done.) |
|
2014-02-18
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
|
2014-02-18
|
00 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
|
2014-02-17
|
00 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
|
2014-02-17
|
00 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
|
2014-02-15
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
|
2014-02-12
|
00 | Sean Turner | Ballot has been issued |
|
2014-02-12
|
00 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
|
2014-02-12
|
00 | Sean Turner | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2014-02-12
|
00 | Sean Turner | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2014-02-11
|
00 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
|
2014-02-03
|
00 | Francis Dupont | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Francis Dupont. |
|
2014-01-17
|
00 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Fajardo |
|
2014-01-17
|
00 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Fajardo |
|
2014-01-16
|
00 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
|
2014-01-16
|
00 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
|
2014-01-16
|
00 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2014-01-16
|
00 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Author: IANA has reviewed draft-housley-pkix-test-oids-00, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: IANA has a question about the IANA action … IESG/Author: IANA has reviewed draft-housley-pkix-test-oids-00, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: IANA has a question about the IANA action this document. We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. QUESTION -> Section 2 of this document describes the following prefixes and a list of testing entries: id-pkix OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) } id-TEST OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix 13 } -- Object Identifiers used ONLY for TESTING id-TEST-certPolicyOne OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-TEST 1 } id-TEST-certPolicyTwo OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-TEST 2 } id-TEST-certPolicyThree OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-TEST 3 } id-TEST-certPolicyFour OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-TEST 4 } id-TEST-certPolicyFive OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-TEST 5 } id-TEST-certPolicySix OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-TEST 6 } id-TEST-certPolicySeven OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-TEST 7 } id-TEST-certPolicyEight OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-TEST 8 } Can the author confirm that the above prefixes and entries are not required to be added to the Network Management Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers ? IANA requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
|
2014-01-16
|
00 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dorothy Gellert |
|
2014-01-16
|
00 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dorothy Gellert |
|
2014-01-15
|
00 | Sean Turner | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-02-20 |
|
2014-01-15
|
00 | Sean Turner | Document Writeup for draft-housley-pkix-test-oids-00 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … Document Writeup for draft-housley-pkix-test-oids-00 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational RFC. It provides constants that can be used for testing certificate handling software. (2) 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 This document provides several certificate policy identifiers for testing certificate handling software. Working Group Summary This document is related to RFC 5280 which was produced by the PKIX WG. That WG is closed, but the mail list remains open. The mail list was asked to comment on the document. Only supportive responses were received. Document Quality Expert review was needed to assign the constants. That has already taken place, and the constants have already been assigned. Personnel Russ Housley is document author and shepherd. Sean Turner is the responsible Area Director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document is very straightforward. IDnits was run. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? None. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. Two separate ASN.1 compilers were used to check the Appendix. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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 concerns to raise. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) 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? Some of these constants were assigned years ago to aid the testing of certificate handling software. Others were assigned more recently. People that develop such software understand how to make use of these values. (10) 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 publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. IDnits provides two warnings. Neither requires a document update. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Expert review was needed to assign the values, and then the document was shared with the PKIX mail list. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) 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 plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No, (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the interested community considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). Expert review was needed to assign the values, and then the document was shared with the PKIX mail list. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. Two separate ASN.1 compilers were used to check the Appendix. |
|
2014-01-15
|
00 | Sean Turner | Document shepherd changed to Russ Housley |
|
2014-01-14
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2014-01-14
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> cc: pkix@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> cc: pkix@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-housley-pkix-test-oids-00.txt> (Object Identifiers for Test Certificate Policies) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Object Identifiers for Test Certificate Policies' <draft-housley-pkix-test-oids-00.txt> as Informational RFC 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 2014-02-11. 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. Abstract This document provides several certificate policy identifiers for testing certificate handling software. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-pkix-test-oids/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-pkix-test-oids/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2014-01-14
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2014-01-14
|
00 | Sean Turner | Last call was requested |
|
2014-01-14
|
00 | Sean Turner | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2014-01-14
|
00 | Sean Turner | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2014-01-14
|
00 | Sean Turner | State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
|
2014-01-14
|
00 | Sean Turner | Last call announcement was changed |
|
2014-01-14
|
00 | Sean Turner | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2014-01-14
|
00 | Sean Turner | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
|
2014-01-14
|
00 | Sean Turner | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
|
2014-01-14
|
00 | Sean Turner | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
|
2014-01-14
|
00 | Sean Turner | IESG state set to Publication Requested |
|
2014-01-14
|
00 | Sean Turner | This is a draft that identifies some OID arcs that were assigned but never documented. This draft rights that wrong. It's the first step in … This is a draft that identifies some OID arcs that were assigned but never documented. This draft rights that wrong. It's the first step in a two step process of moving the PKIX OID arc from being managed by Russ Housley to IANA. I'm proceeding without a shepherd at this point because I think the shepherd write-up is likely to be long than the draft plus this comment. |
|
2014-01-14
|
00 | Sean Turner | Assigned to Security Area |
|
2014-01-14
|
00 | Sean Turner | Intended Status changed to Informational |
|
2014-01-14
|
00 | Sean Turner | IESG process started in state AD is watching |
|
2014-01-14
|
00 | Sean Turner | Stream changed to IETF from None |
|
2014-01-07
|
00 | Russ Housley | New version available: draft-housley-pkix-test-oids-00.txt |