The draft below was sent through last call as Proposed Standard, which
was intended, but the document header was listed as informational. If
there is no issue changing the header and proceeding as proposed
standard, we'll go ahead with that. Please let me know if there is a
problem and we'll put it through as informational, it was marked
correctly everywhere else and did go through the 4 week last call
process.
Thank you,
Kathleen
Subject: Last Call: <draft-santesson-auth-context-extension-09.txt>
(Authentication Context Certificate Extension) to Proposed Standard
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:08:19 -0700
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Reply-To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Authentication Context Certificate Extension'
<draft-santesson-auth-context-extension-09.txt> as Proposed Standard
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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2015-10-27. Exceptionally, comments
may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
This document defines an extension to certificates according to
[RFC5280]. The extension defined in this document holds data about
how the certificate subject was authenticated by the Certification
Authority that issued the certificate in which this extension appears
This document also defines one data structure for inclusion in this
Extension. The data structure is designed to hold information when
the subject is authenticated using a SAML assertion [SAML].
The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-santesson-auth-context-extension/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-santesson-auth-context-extension/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
Note: The editorial comments in the shepherd report have been addressed.
These will be removed/updated in a future version of the shepherd
report, but I didn't want to hold up processing of this draft any further.
--
Best regards,
Kathleen