<?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-02" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.20.1 -->
  <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-02"/>
    <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="March" day="16"/>
    <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Authority (CA) that issues these short-lived certificates do not publish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), and the Description for the new OID should be set
to "id-mod-noRevAvail".</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>
