Skip to main content

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