Internet-Draft Enhanced Revocation Extensions April 2023
Pala Expires 14 October 2023 [Page]
Workgroup:
LAMPS Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-pala-enhanced-revocation-latest
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Author:
M. Pala
CableLabs

Enhanced Revocation Extensions for the Internet PKI

Abstract

TODO Abstract

About This Document

This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://openca.github.io/draft-pala-enhanced-revocation/draft-pala-enhanced-revocation.html. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pala-enhanced-revocation/.

Discussion of this document takes place on the LAMPS Working Group mailing list (mailto:spasm@ietf.org), which is archived at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lamps/documents/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm/.

Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/openca/draft-pala-enhanced-revocation.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 14 October 2023.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

TODO Introduction

2. Conventions and Definitions

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

3. Security Considerations

TODO Security

4. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.

5. Normative References

[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

Acknowledgments

This document incorporates contributions from a large group of experts that contributed to the work behind composite cryptography for the Internet. The Editors would especially like to acknowledge the expertise and tireless dedication of the following people, who attended many long meetings and generated millions of bytes of electronic mail and VOIP traffic over the past year(s) in pursuit of a better world:

John Gray (Entrust), Serge Mister (Entrust), Scott Fluhrer (Cisco Systems), Panos Kampanakis (Cisco Systems), Daniel Van Geest (ISARA), Tim Hollebeek (Digicert), Jan Klaussner (D-Trust), Klaus-Dieter Wirth (D-Trust), François Rousseau.

We are grateful to all, including any contributors who may have been inadvertently omitted from this list.

This document borrows text from similar documents, including those referenced below. Thanks go to the authors of those documents.

Author's Address

Massimiliano Pala
CableLabs Inc.
858 Coal Creek Cir
Louisville, Colorado, 80027
United States of America