<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.2 (Ruby 2.6.10) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-lamps-norevavail-01" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.19.2 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="NoRevAvail for Public Key Certificates">No Revocation Available for X.509 Public Key Certificates</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-lamps-norevavail-01"/>
    <author initials="R." surname="Housley" fullname="Russ Housley">
      <organization abbrev="Vigil Security">Vigil Security, LLC</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <city>Herndon, VA</city>
          <country>US</country>
        </postal>
        <email>housley@vigilsec.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="T." surname="Okubo" fullname="Tomofumi Okubo">
      <organization abbrev="DigiCert">DigiCert, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <city>Fairfax, VA</city>
          <country>US</country>
        </postal>
        <email>tomofumi.okubo+ietf@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="J." surname="Mandel" fullname="Joseph Mandel">
      <organization abbrev="SecureG">SecureG Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <city>Tacoma, WA</city>
          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>
        <email>joe.mandel@secureg.io</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2024" month="February" day="02"/>
    <area>Security</area>
    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <?line 137?>

<t>X.509v3 public key certificates are profiled in RFC 5280.  Short-lived
certificates are seeing greater use in the Internet.  The Certification
Authority (CA) that issues these short-lived certificates do not publish
revocation information because the certificate lifespan that is shorter than
the time needed to detect, report, and distribute revocation information. Some
long-lived X.509v3 public key certificates never expire, and they are never
revoked. This specification defines the noRevAvail certificate extension so
that a relying party can readily determine that the CA does not publish
revocation information for the certificate.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <?line 149?>

<section anchor="intro">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>X.509v3 public key certificates <xref target="RFC5280"/> with short validity periods are
seeing greater use in the Internet.  For example, Automatic Certificate
Management Environment (ACME) <xref target="RFC8555"/> provides a straightforward way
to obtain short-lived certificates.  In many cases, no revocation
information is made available for short-lived certificates by the
Certification Authority (CA).  This is because short-lived certificates
have a validity period that is shorter than the time needed to detect, report,
and distribute revocation information.  As a result, revoking a short-lived
certificate that is used for authentication or key management is unnecessary
and pointless.  On the other hand, revoking a certificate associated with a
long-lived signature, such as document signing or code signing, provides some
important information about when a compromise was discovered.</t>
      <t>Some long-lived X.509v3 public key certificates never expire, and they are
never revoked. For example, a factory might include an IDevID certificate <xref target="IEEE802.1AR"/>
to bind the factory-assigned device identity to a factory-installed public key. This
identity might include the manufacturer, model, and serial number of the device,
which never change.  To indicate that a certificate has no well-defined expiration
date, the notAfter date in the certificate validity period is set to
"99991231235959Z" <xref target="RFC5280"/>.</t>
      <t>This specification defines the noRevAvail certificate extension so that a
relying party can readily determine that the CA does not publish revocation
information for the end-entity certificate.</t>
      <t>Note that the noRevAvail certificate extension provides similar functionality
to the ocsp-nocheck certificate extension <xref target="RFC6960"/>.  The ocsp-nocheck
certificate extension is appropriate for inclusion only in certificates issued to
OCSP Responders, whereas noRevAvail certificate extension is appropriate in any
end-entity certificate for which the CA will not publish revocation information.  To
avoid disruption to the OCSP ecosystem, implementers should not think of the
noRevAvail certificate extension a substitute for the ocsp-nocheck certificate
extension; however, the noRevAvail certificate extension could be included in
certificates issued to OCSP Responders in addition to the ocsp-nocheck
certificate extension.</t>
      <section anchor="terms">
        <name>Terminology</name>
        <t>The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
        <?line -18?>

</section>
      <section anchor="asn1">
        <name>ASN.1</name>
        <t>X.509 certificates are generated using ASN.1 <xref target="X.680"/>, using the Basic
Encoding Rules (BER) and the Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER) <xref target="X.690"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="history">
        <name>History</name>
        <t>In 1988, CCITT defined the X.509v1 certificate <xref target="X.509-1988"/>.</t>
        <t>In 1997, ITU-T defined the X.509v3 certificate and the attribute
certificate <xref target="X.509-1997"/>.</t>
        <t>In 1999, the IETF first profiled the X.509v3 certificate for use in the
Internet <xref target="RFC2459"/>.</t>
        <t>In 2000, ITU-T defined the noRevAvail certificate extension for use with
attribute certificates <xref target="X.509-2000"/>.</t>
        <t>In 2002, the IETF first profiled the attribute certificate for use in the
Internet <xref target="RFC3281"/>, and this profile included support for the
noRevAvail certificate extension.</t>
        <t>In 2019, ITU-T published an update to ITU-T Recommendation X.509
<xref target="X.509-2019"/>.</t>
        <t>With greater use of short-lived certificates in the Internet, the recent
Technical Corrigendum to ITU-T Recommendation X.509 <xref target="X.509-2019-TC2"/> allows
the noRevAvail certificate extension to be used with public key certificates
as well as attribute certificates.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="the-norevavail-certificate-extension">
      <name>The noRevAvail Certificate Extension</name>
      <t>The noRevAvail extension, defined in <xref target="X.509-2019-TC2"/>, allows an CA to indicate that
no revocation information will be made available for this certificate.</t>
      <t>This extension <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be present in CA public key certificates.</t>
      <t>Conforming CAs <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> include this extension in certificates for which no
revocation information will be published.  When present, conforming CAs
<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> mark this extension as non-critical.</t>
      <ul empty="true">
        <li>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
name           id-ce-noRevAvail
OID            { id-ce 56 }
syntax         NULL (i.e. '0500'H is the DER encoding)
criticality    MUST be FALSE
]]></artwork>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>A relying party that does not understand this extension might be able to
find a certificate revocation list (CRL) from the CA, but the CRL will
never include an entry for the certificate containing this extension.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="other-x509-certificate-extensions">
      <name>Other X.509 Certificate Extensions</name>
      <t>Certificates for CAs <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> include the noRevAvail extension.
Certificates that include the noRevAvail extension <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> include
certificate extensions that point to Certificate Revocation List (CRL)
repositories or provide locations of Online Certificate Status Protocol
(OCSP) Responders.  If the noRevAvail extension is present in a
certificate, then:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>The certificate <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> also include the basic constraints certificate extension with the cA BOOLEAN set to TRUE; see Section 4.2.1.9 of <xref target="RFC5280"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>The certificate <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> also include the CRL Distribution Points certificate extension; see Section 4.2.1.13 of <xref target="RFC5280"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>The certificate <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> also include the Freshest CRL certificate extension; see Section 4.2.1.15 of <xref target="RFC5280"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>The Authority Information Access certificate extension, if present, <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> include an id-ad-ocsp accessMethod; see Section 4.2.2.1 of <xref target="RFC5280"/>.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>If any of the above bullets is violated in a certificate, then
the relying party <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> consider the certificate invalid.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="certification-path-validation">
      <name>Certification Path Validation</name>
      <t><xref section="6.1.3" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC5280"/> describes basic certificate processing within
the certification path validation procedures.  In particular, Step (a)(3) says:</t>
      <ul empty="true">
        <li>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
At the current time, the certificate is not revoked.  This
may be determined by obtaining the appropriate CRL
(Section 6.3), by status information, or by out-of-band
mechanisms.
]]></artwork>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>If the noRevAvail certificate extension that is specified in this document
is present or the ocsp-nocheck certificate extension <xref target="RFC6960"/> is present,
then Step (a)(3) is skipped.  Otherwise, revocation status determination of
certificate is performed.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="asn1-mod">
      <name>ASN.1 Module</name>
      <t>This section provides an ASN.1 module <xref target="X.680"/> for the noRevAvail
certificate extension, and it follows the conventions established
in <xref target="RFC5912"/> and <xref target="RFC6268"/>.</t>
      <sourcecode type="asn.1" markers="true"><![CDATA[
  NoRevAvailExtn
    { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
      security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
      id-mod-noRevAvail(TBD) }

  DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::=
  BEGIN

  IMPORTS
    EXTENSION
    FROM PKIX-CommonTypes-2009  -- RFC 5912
      { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
        security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
        id-mod-pkixCommon-02(57) } ;

  -- noRevAvail Certificate Extension

  ext-noRevAvail EXTENSION ::= {
    SYNTAX NULL
    IDENTIFIED BY id-ce-noRevAvail
    CRITICALITY { FALSE } }

  -- noRevAvail Certificate Extension OID

  id-ce OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-ccitt(2) ds(5) 29 }

  id-ce-noRevAvail OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ce 56 }
 
  END
]]></sourcecode>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sec-cons">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>The Security Considerations in <xref target="RFC5280"/> are relevant.</t>
      <t>When the noRevAvail certificate extension is included in a certificate,
all revocation checking is bypassed, even if the CRL Distribution Points,
Freshest CRL, or Authority Information Access (pointing to an OCSP Responder)
certificate extensions are present.  CA policies and practices <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> ensure
that the noRevAvail is included only when appropriate, as any misuse or
misconfiguration could result in a relying party continuing to trust
a revoked certificate.  When such mis-use is discovered, the only possible
remediation is the revocation of the CA.</t>
      <t>Some applications may have dependencies on revocation information or assume
its availability. The absence of revocation information may require modifications
or alternative configuration settings to ensure proper application security and
functionality.</t>
      <t>The absence of revocation information limits the ability of relying
parties to detect compromise of end-entity keying material or malicious
certificates. It also limits the ability to detect CAs not following
the security practices, certificate issuance policies, and operational
controls that are specified in the Certificate Policy (CP) or the
Certification Practices Statement (CPS) <xref target="RFC3647"/>.</t>
      <t>Since the absence of revocation information may limit the ability to
detect compromised keying material or malicious certificates, relying
parties need confidence that the CA is following security practices,
implementing certificate issuance policies, and properly using
operational controls.  Relying parties may evaluate CA reliability,
monitoring CA performance, and observe CA incident response capabilities.</t>
      <section anchor="short-lived-certificates">
        <name>Short-lived Certificates</name>
        <t>No revocation information is made available for short-lived certificates
because the certificate validity period is shorter than the time needed to
detect, report, and distribute revocation information. If the noRevAvail
certificate extension is incorrectly used for a certificate validity
period that is not adequately short, it creates a window of opportunity for
attackers to exploit a compromised private key. Therefore, it is crucial
to carefully assess and set an appropriate certificate validity period
before implementing the noRevAvail certificate extension.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="long-lived-certificates">
        <name>Long-lived Certificates</name>
        <t>No revocation information is made available for some long-lived certificates
that contain information that never changes.  For example, IDevID certificates
<xref target="IEEE802.1AR"/> are included in devices at the factory, and they are used to
obtain LDevID certificates <xref target="IEEE802.1AR"/> in an operational environment. In this
case, cryptographic algorithms need to be chosen that are expected to remain secure
to the expected lifetime of the device. If the noRevAvail certificate extension is
used, the CA has no means of notifying the relying party about compromise of the
factory-installed keying material.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>For the ASN.1 Module in <xref target="asn1-mod"/>, IANA is requested to assign an
object identifier (OID) for the module identifier. The OID for the module
should be allocated in the "SMI Security for PKIX Module Identifier"
registry (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.0).</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="acknowledgements">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>Many thanks to Erik Anderson for his efforts to make the noRevAvail
certificate extension available for use with public key end-entity
certificates as well as attribute certificates.</t>
      <t>Many thanks to (in alphabetical order)
Corey Bonnell,
Hendrik Brockhaus,
Tim Hollebeek,
Mike Ounsworth,
Seo Suchan, and
Carl Wallace
for their review and insightful comments.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <references anchor="sec-normative-references">
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC5280">
          <front>
            <title>Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile</title>
            <author fullname="D. Cooper" initials="D." surname="Cooper"/>
            <author fullname="S. Santesson" initials="S." surname="Santesson"/>
            <author fullname="S. Farrell" initials="S." surname="Farrell"/>
            <author fullname="S. Boeyen" initials="S." surname="Boeyen"/>
            <author fullname="R. Housley" initials="R." surname="Housley"/>
            <author fullname="W. Polk" initials="W." surname="Polk"/>
            <date month="May" year="2008"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This memo profiles the X.509 v3 certificate and X.509 v2 certificate revocation list (CRL) for use in the Internet. An overview of this approach and model is provided as an introduction. The X.509 v3 certificate format is described in detail, with additional information regarding the format and semantics of Internet name forms. Standard certificate extensions are described and two Internet-specific extensions are defined. A set of required certificate extensions is specified. The X.509 v2 CRL format is described in detail along with standard and Internet-specific extensions. An algorithm for X.509 certification path validation is described. An ASN.1 module and examples are provided in the appendices. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5280"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5280"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="X.509-2019-TC2" target="https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.509-202310-I!Cor2">
          <front>
            <title>Information Technology -- Open Systems Interconnection -- The Directory: Public-key and attribute certificate frameworks -- Technical Corrigendum 2</title>
            <author>
              <organization>ITU-T</organization>
            </author>
            <date year="2023" month="October"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="ITU-T Recommendation" value="X.509-2019/Cor.2-2023"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="X.680" target="https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.680">
          <front>
            <title>Information technology -- Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1): Specification of basic notation</title>
            <author>
              <organization>ITU-T</organization>
            </author>
            <date year="2021" month="February"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="ITU-T Recommendation" value="X.680"/>
          <seriesInfo name="ISO/IEC" value="8824-1:2021"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="X.690" target="https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.690">
          <front>
            <title>Information technology -- ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)</title>
            <author>
              <organization>ITU-T</organization>
            </author>
            <date year="2021" month="February"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="ITU-T Recommendation" value="X.690"/>
          <seriesInfo name="ISO/IEC" value="8825-1-2021"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC2119">
          <front>
            <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
            <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
            <date month="March" year="1997"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8174">
          <front>
            <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
            <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
            <date month="May" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
      <references anchor="sec-informative-references">
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <reference anchor="IEEE802.1AR" target="https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8423794">
          <front>
            <title>IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Secure Device Identity</title>
            <author>
              <organization>IEEE</organization>
            </author>
            <date year="2018" month="July" day="31"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="IEEE" value="802.1AR-2018"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC2459">
          <front>
            <title>Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL Profile</title>
            <author fullname="R. Housley" initials="R." surname="Housley"/>
            <author fullname="W. Ford" initials="W." surname="Ford"/>
            <author fullname="W. Polk" initials="W." surname="Polk"/>
            <author fullname="D. Solo" initials="D." surname="Solo"/>
            <date month="January" year="1999"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This memo profiles the X.509 v3 certificate and X.509 v2 CRL for use in the Internet. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2459"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2459"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC3281">
          <front>
            <title>An Internet Attribute Certificate Profile for Authorization</title>
            <author fullname="S. Farrell" initials="S." surname="Farrell"/>
            <author fullname="R. Housley" initials="R." surname="Housley"/>
            <date month="April" year="2002"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This specification defines a profile for the use of X.509 Attribute Certificates in Internet Protocols. Attribute certificates may be used in a wide range of applications and environments covering a broad spectrum of interoperability goals and a broader spectrum of operational and assurance requirements. The goal of this document is to establish a common baseline for generic applications requiring broad interoperability as well as limited special purpose requirements. The profile places emphasis on attribute certificate support for Internet electronic mail, IPSec, and WWW security applications. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3281"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3281"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC3647">
          <front>
            <title>Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate Policy and Certification Practices Framework</title>
            <author fullname="S. Chokhani" initials="S." surname="Chokhani"/>
            <author fullname="W. Ford" initials="W." surname="Ford"/>
            <author fullname="R. Sabett" initials="R." surname="Sabett"/>
            <author fullname="C. Merrill" initials="C." surname="Merrill"/>
            <author fullname="S. Wu" initials="S." surname="Wu"/>
            <date month="November" year="2003"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document presents a framework to assist the writers of certificate policies or certification practice statements for participants within public key infrastructures, such as certification authorities, policy authorities, and communities of interest that wish to rely on certificates. In particular, the framework provides a comprehensive list of topics that potentially (at the writer's discretion) need to be covered in a certificate policy or a certification practice statement. This document supersedes RFC 2527.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3647"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3647"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5912">
          <front>
            <title>New ASN.1 Modules for the Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX)</title>
            <author fullname="P. Hoffman" initials="P." surname="Hoffman"/>
            <author fullname="J. Schaad" initials="J." surname="Schaad"/>
            <date month="June" year="2010"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The Public Key Infrastructure using X.509 (PKIX) certificate format, and many associated formats, are expressed using ASN.1. The current ASN.1 modules conform to the 1988 version of ASN.1. This document updates those ASN.1 modules to conform to the 2002 version of ASN.1. There are no bits-on-the-wire changes to any of the formats; this is simply a change to the syntax. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5912"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5912"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC6268">
          <front>
            <title>Additional New ASN.1 Modules for the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) and the Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX)</title>
            <author fullname="J. Schaad" initials="J." surname="Schaad"/>
            <author fullname="S. Turner" initials="S." surname="Turner"/>
            <date month="July" year="2011"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) format, and many associated formats, are expressed using ASN.1. The current ASN.1 modules conform to the 1988 version of ASN.1. This document updates some auxiliary ASN.1 modules to conform to the 2008 version of ASN.1; the 1988 ASN.1 modules remain the normative version. There are no bits- on-the-wire changes to any of the formats; this is simply a change to the syntax. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6268"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6268"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC6960">
          <front>
            <title>X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP</title>
            <author fullname="S. Santesson" initials="S." surname="Santesson"/>
            <author fullname="M. Myers" initials="M." surname="Myers"/>
            <author fullname="R. Ankney" initials="R." surname="Ankney"/>
            <author fullname="A. Malpani" initials="A." surname="Malpani"/>
            <author fullname="S. Galperin" initials="S." surname="Galperin"/>
            <author fullname="C. Adams" initials="C." surname="Adams"/>
            <date month="June" year="2013"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies a protocol useful in determining the current status of a digital certificate without requiring Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs). Additional mechanisms addressing PKIX operational requirements are specified in separate documents. This document obsoletes RFCs 2560 and 6277. It also updates RFC 5912.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6960"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6960"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8555">
          <front>
            <title>Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)</title>
            <author fullname="R. Barnes" initials="R." surname="Barnes"/>
            <author fullname="J. Hoffman-Andrews" initials="J." surname="Hoffman-Andrews"/>
            <author fullname="D. McCarney" initials="D." surname="McCarney"/>
            <author fullname="J. Kasten" initials="J." surname="Kasten"/>
            <date month="March" year="2019"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Public Key Infrastructure using X.509 (PKIX) certificates are used for a number of purposes, the most significant of which is the authentication of domain names. Thus, certification authorities (CAs) in the Web PKI are trusted to verify that an applicant for a certificate legitimately represents the domain name(s) in the certificate. As of this writing, this verification is done through a collection of ad hoc mechanisms. This document describes a protocol that a CA and an applicant can use to automate the process of verification and certificate issuance. The protocol also provides facilities for other certificate management functions, such as certificate revocation.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8555"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8555"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="X.509-1988" target="https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.509-198811-S">
          <front>
            <title>Series X: Data Communication Networks: Directory -- The Directory -- Authentication Framework</title>
            <author>
              <organization>CCITT</organization>
            </author>
            <date year="1988" month="November"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="CCITT Recommendation" value="X.509-1988"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="X.509-1997" target="https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.509-199708-S">
          <front>
            <title>Information Technology -- Open Systems Interconnection -- The Directory: Authentication framework</title>
            <author>
              <organization>ITU-T</organization>
            </author>
            <date year="1997" month="August"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="ITU-T Recommendation" value="X.509-1997"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="X.509-2000" target="https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.509-200003-S">
          <front>
            <title>Information Technology -- Open Systems Interconnection -- The Directory: Public-key and attribute certificate frameworks</title>
            <author>
              <organization>ITU-T</organization>
            </author>
            <date year="2000" month="March"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="ITU-T Recommendation" value="X.509-2000"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="X.509-2019" target="https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.509-201910-I">
          <front>
            <title>Information Technology -- Open Systems Interconnection -- The Directory: Public-key and attribute certificate frameworks</title>
            <author>
              <organization>ITU-T</organization>
            </author>
            <date year="2019" month="October"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="ITU-T Recommendation" value="X.509-2019"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
