|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
IETF RFC 3280 (2002)
|
|
Title:
|
Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Revocation List (CRL) Profile, April 2002
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Normative
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
H.235.2 uses RFC 3280 to validate the signer's public key during the certification path processing and to support non-repudiation.
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
Information on IPR issues regarding RFCs is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/. Specifically: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=3280
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
This RFC has been in existence since April 2002 but incorporates superseded RFC 2459 from 1999.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
This reference is a standards-track document and is currently in the "Proposed Standard" state. Current standards status of this document can be found at ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/std/std1.txt
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
RFC 3280 is a component of the suite of internet protocols and standards and is widely used by the internet community in the area of X.509 public-key infrastructure (PKI) support.
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[ISO 10646] ISO/IEC 10646-1:1993. International Standard -- Information technology -- Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS) -- Part 1: Architecture and Basic Multilingual Plane./
[RFC 791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981./
[RFC 822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982./
[RFC 1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987./
[RFC 1422] Kent, S., "Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part II: Certificate-Based Key Management," RFC 1422, February 1993./
[RFC 1423] Balenson, D., "Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part III: Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers," RFC 1423, February 1993./
[RFC 1510] Kohl, J. and C. Neuman, "The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)," RFC 1510, September 1993./
[RFC 1519] Fuller, V., T. Li, J. Yu and K. Varadhan, "Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): An Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy", RFC 1519, September 1993./
[RFC 1738] Berners-Lee, T., L. Masinter and M. McCahill, "Uniform Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, December 1994./
[RFC 1778] Howes, T., S. Kille, W. Yeong and C. Robbins, "The String Representation of Standard Attribute Syntaxes," RFC 1778, March 1995./
[RFC 1883] Deering, S. and R. Hinden. "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 1883, December 1995./
[RFC 2044] F. Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode and ISO 10646", RFC 2044, October 1996./
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997./
[RFC 2247] Kille, S., M. Wahl, A. Grimstad, R. Huber and S. Sataluri, "Using Domains in LDAP/X.500 Distinguished Names", RFC 2247, January 1998./
[RFC 2252] Wahl, M., A. Coulbeck, T. Howes and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Attribute Syntax Definitions", RFC 2252, December 1997./
[RFC 2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998./
[RFC 2279] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", RFC 2279, January 1998./
[RFC 2459] Housley, R., W. Ford, W. Polk and D. Solo, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure: Certificate and CRL Profile", RFC 2459, January 1999./
[RFC 2560] Myers, M., R. Ankney, A. Malpani, S. Galperin and C. Adams, "Online Certificate Status Protocal - OCSP", June 1999./
[SDN.701] SDN.701, "Message Security Protocol 4.0", Revision A, 1997-02-06./
[X.501] ITU-T Recommendation X.501: Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Models, 1993./
[X.509] ITU-T Recommendation X.509 (1997 E): Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Authentication Framework, June 1997./
[X.520] ITU-T Recommendation X.520: Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Selected Attribute Types, 1993./
[X.660] ITU-T Recommendation X.660 Information Technology - ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER), 1997./
[X.690] ITU-T Recommendation X.690 Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - Procedures for the operation of OSI Registration Authorities: General procedures, 1992./
[X9.55] ANSI X9.55-1995, Public Key Cryptography For The Financial Services Industry: Extensions To Public Key Certificates And Certificate Revocation Lists, 8 December, 1995./
[PKIXALGS] Bassham, L., Polk, W. and R. Housley, "Algorithms and Identifiers for the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation Lists (CRL) Profile", RFC 3279, April 2002./
[PKIXTSA] Adams, C., Cain, P., Pinkas, D. and R. Zuccherato, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Time-Stamp Protocol (TSP)", RFC 3161, August 2001.
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
References should always be made to RFC numbers (and not by other designations such as STD, BCP, etc.). References not to be made to documents referred to as "Internet Drafts" or RFCs categorized as "Historic". Normative references should not be made to RFCs that are not standards, for example, "Informational" and "Experimental" RFCs.
|
|
