|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Approved
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
IETF RFC 6066 (2011), Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions: Extension Definitions, specifies Extension Definitions for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2, which is an element for communication in conjuntion with the APIs for general ECI Host resources in draft new J.1012. Thus IETF RFC 6066 (2011) is a normative reference for draft new J.1012 (ex-part3).
|
|
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=6066
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
RFC 6066 has been in existence since 2011. This text is a Proposed Standard. These documents have been reviewed extensively in IETF.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
RFC 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 6066 specifications for existing TLS extensions. It is a companion document for RFC 5246, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2". and is expected to be widely used.Obsoletes RFC 4366
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC:/
Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,/
February 1997./
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate/
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997./
[RFC2560] Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A., Galperin, S., and/
C. Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure/
Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP", RFC 2560,/
June 1999./
[RFC2585] Housley, R. and P. Hoffman, "Internet X.509 Public Key/
Infrastructure Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP",/
RFC 2585, May 1999./
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,/
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee,/
"Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616,/
June 1999./
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter,/
"Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax",/
STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005./
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer/
Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August/
2008./
[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,/
Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key/
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation/
List (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008./
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for/
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document/
Framework", RFC 5890, August 2010./
|
|
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.
|
|
