Network Working Group D. Eastlake
Request for Comments: 2538 IBM
Category: Standards Track O. Gudmundsson
TIS Labs
March 1999
Network Working Group D. Eastlake
Request for Comments: 2538 IBM
Category: Standards Track O. Gudmundsson
TIS Labs
March 1999
Storing Certificates in the Domain Name System (DNS)
在域名系统（DNS）中存储证书
Status of this Memo
本备忘录的状况
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本文件规定了互联网社区的互联网标准跟踪协议，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。有关本协议的标准化状态和状态，请参考当前版本的“互联网官方协议标准”（STD 1）。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（1999年）。版权所有。
Abstract
摘要
Cryptographic public key are frequently published and their authenticity demonstrated by certificates. A CERT resource record (RR) is defined so that such certificates and related certificate revocation lists can be stored in the Domain Name System (DNS).
加密公钥经常发布，其真实性由证书证明。定义证书资源记录（RR），以便将此类证书和相关证书吊销列表存储在域名系统（DNS）中。
Table of Contents
目录
Abstract...................................................1
1. Introduction............................................2
2. The CERT Resource Record................................2
2.1 Certificate Type Values................................3
2.2 Text Representation of CERT RRs........................4
2.3 X.509 OIDs.............................................4
3. Appropriate Owner Names for CERT RRs....................5
3.1 X.509 CERT RR Names....................................5
3.2 PGP CERT RR Names......................................6
4. Performance Considerations..............................6
5. IANA Considerations.....................................7
6. Security Considerations.................................7
References.................................................8
Authors' Addresses.........................................9
Full Copyright Notice.....................................10
Abstract...................................................1
1. Introduction............................................2
2. The CERT Resource Record................................2
2.1 Certificate Type Values................................3
2.2 Text Representation of CERT RRs........................4
2.3 X.509 OIDs.............................................4
3. Appropriate Owner Names for CERT RRs....................5
3.1 X.509 CERT RR Names....................................5
3.2 PGP CERT RR Names......................................6
4. Performance Considerations..............................6
5. IANA Considerations.....................................7
6. Security Considerations.................................7
References.................................................8
Authors' Addresses.........................................9
Full Copyright Notice.....................................10
Public keys are frequently published in the form of a certificate and their authenticity is commonly demonstrated by certificates and related certificate revocation lists (CRLs). A certificate is a binding, through a cryptographic digital signature, of a public key, a validity interval and/or conditions, and identity, authorization, or other information. A certificate revocation list is a list of certificates that are revoked, and incidental information, all signed by the signer (issuer) of the revoked certificates. Examples are X.509 certificates/CRLs in the X.500 directory system or PGP certificates/revocations used by PGP software.
公钥通常以证书的形式发布，其真实性通常由证书和相关证书吊销列表（CRL）来证明。证书是通过加密数字签名对公钥、有效期间隔和/或条件以及身份、授权或其他信息的绑定。证书吊销列表是由已吊销证书的签名者（颁发者）签署的已吊销证书和附带信息的列表。例如X.500目录系统中的X.509证书/CRL或PGP软件使用的PGP证书/撤销。
Section 2 below specifies a CERT resource record (RR) for the storage of certificates in the Domain Name System.
下面的第2节指定了用于在域名系统中存储证书的证书资源记录（RR）。
Section 3 discusses appropriate owner names for CERT RRs.
第3节讨论了证书RRs的适当所有者名称。
Sections 4, 5, and 6 below cover performance, IANA, and security considerations, respectively.
下文第4、5和6节分别介绍了性能、IANA和安全注意事项。
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
The CERT resource record (RR) has the structure given below. Its RR type code is 37.
证书资源记录（RR）的结构如下所示。其RR类型代码为37。
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| type | key tag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| algorithm | /
+---------------+ certificate or CRL /
/ /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| type | key tag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| algorithm | /
+---------------+ certificate or CRL /
/ /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|
The type field is the certificate type as define in section 2.1 below.
类型字段是下面第2.1节中定义的证书类型。
The algorithm field has the same meaning as the algorithm field in KEY and SIG RRs [RFC 2535] except that a zero algorithm field indicates the algorithm is unknown to a secure DNS, which may simply be the result of the algorithm not having been standardized for secure DNS.
算法字段与KEY和SIG RRs[RFC 2535]中的算法字段具有相同的含义，不同之处在于零算法字段表示安全DNS不知道该算法，这可能只是由于该算法未针对安全DNS进行标准化。
The key tag field is the 16 bit value computed for the key embedded in the certificate as specified in the DNSSEC Standard [RFC 2535]. This field is used as an efficiency measure to pick which CERT RRs may be applicable to a particular key. The key tag can be calculated for the key in question and then only CERT RRs with the same key tag need be examined. However, the key must always be transformed to the format it would have as the public key portion of a KEY RR before the key tag is computed. This is only possible if the key is applicable to an algorithm (and limits such as key size limits) defined for DNS security. If it is not, the algorithm field MUST BE zero and the tag field is meaningless and SHOULD BE zero.
密钥标记字段是为DNSSEC标准[RFC 2535]中指定的证书中嵌入的密钥计算的16位值。此字段用作效率度量，以选择哪些证书RRs可能适用于特定密钥。可以为相关密钥计算密钥标签，然后只需检查具有相同密钥标签的证书RRs。但是，在计算密钥标记之前，必须始终将密钥转换为密钥RR的公钥部分的格式。只有当密钥适用于为DNS安全性定义的算法（以及密钥大小限制等限制）时，这才可能实现。如果不是，则算法字段必须为零，标记字段没有意义，应该为零。
The following values are defined or reserved:
定义或保留以下值：
Value Mnemonic Certificate Type
----- -------- ----------- ----
0 reserved
1 PKIX X.509 as per PKIX
2 SPKI SPKI cert
3 PGP PGP cert
4-252 available for IANA assignment
253 URI URI private
254 OID OID private
255-65534 available for IANA assignment
65535 reserved
Value Mnemonic Certificate Type
----- -------- ----------- ----
0 reserved
1 PKIX X.509 as per PKIX
2 SPKI SPKI cert
3 PGP PGP cert
4-252 available for IANA assignment
253 URI URI private
254 OID OID private
255-65534 available for IANA assignment
65535 reserved
The PKIX type is reserved to indicate an X.509 certificate conforming to the profile being defined by the IETF PKIX working group. The certificate section will start with a one byte unsigned OID length and then an X.500 OID indicating the nature of the remainder of the certificate section (see 2.3 below). (NOTE: X.509 certificates do not include their X.500 directory type designating OID as a prefix.)
保留PKIX类型是为了表示符合IETF PKIX工作组定义的配置文件的X.509证书。证书部分将以一字节无符号OID长度开始，然后是一个X.500 OID，指示证书部分其余部分的性质（请参见下面的2.3）。（注意：X.509证书不包括其将OID指定为前缀的X.500目录类型。）
The SPKI type is reserved to indicate a certificate formated as to be specified by the IETF SPKI working group.
保留SPKI类型是为了指示IETF SPKI工作组指定的证书格式。
The PGP type indicates a Pretty Good Privacy certificate as described in RFC 2440 and its extensions and successors.
PGP类型表示RFC2440及其扩展和后续版本中描述的相当好的隐私证书。
The URI private type indicates a certificate format defined by an absolute URI. The certificate portion of the CERT RR MUST begin with a null terminated URI [RFC 2396] and the data after the null is the private format certificate itself. The URI SHOULD be such that a retrieval from it will lead to documentation on the format of the certificate. Recognition of private certificate types need not be based on URI equality but can use various forms of pattern matching
URI私有类型表示由绝对URI定义的证书格式。CERT RR的证书部分必须以以null结尾的URI[RFC 2396]开头，null后面的数据是私有格式证书本身。URI应该是这样的，从中检索将导致关于证书格式的文档。私有证书类型的识别不需要基于URI相等，但可以使用各种形式的模式匹配
so that, for example, subtype or version information can also be encoded into the URI.
因此，例如，子类型或版本信息也可以编码到URI中。
The OID private type indicates a private format certificate specified by a an ISO OID prefix. The certificate section will start with a one byte unsigned OID length and then a BER encoded OID indicating the nature of the remainder of the certificate section. This can be an X.509 certificate format or some other format. X.509 certificates that conform to the IETF PKIX profile SHOULD be indicated by the PKIX type, not the OID private type. Recognition of private certificate types need not be based on OID equality but can use various forms of pattern matching such as OID prefix.
OID私有类型表示由ISO OID前缀指定的私有格式证书。证书部分将以一字节无符号OID长度开始，然后是一个BER编码的OID，指示证书部分其余部分的性质。这可以是X.509证书格式或其他格式。符合IETF PKIX配置文件的X.509证书应以PKIX类型而不是OID专用类型表示。私有证书类型的识别不需要基于OID相等，但可以使用各种形式的模式匹配，如OID前缀。
The RDATA portion of a CERT RR has the type field as an unsigned integer or as a mnemonic symbol as listed in section 2.1 above.
证书RR的RDATA部分的类型字段为无符号整数或助记符，如上文第2.1节所列。
The key tag field is represented as an unsigned integer.
键标记字段表示为无符号整数。
The algorithm field is represented as an unsigned integer or a mnemonic symbol as listed in [RFC 2535].
算法字段表示为[RFC 2535]中列出的无符号整数或助记符。
The certificate / CRL portion is represented in base 64 and may be divided up into any number of white space separated substrings, down to single base 64 digits, which are concatenated to obtain the full signature. These substrings can span lines using the standard parenthesis.
证书/CRL部分以基数64表示，并且可以被划分为任意数量的空格分隔的子字符串，直至单个基数64位，这些子字符串被连接以获得完整签名。这些子字符串可以使用标准括号跨行。
Note that the certificate / CRL portion may have internal sub-fields but these do not appear in the master file representation. For example, with type 254, there will be an OID size, an OID, and then the certificate / CRL proper. But only a single logical base 64 string will appear in the text representation.
请注意，证书/CRL部分可能有内部子字段，但这些子字段不会出现在主文件表示中。例如，对于254类型，将有一个OID大小、一个OID，然后是证书/CRL本身。但文本表示中将只显示一个逻辑基64字符串。
OIDs have been defined in connection with the X.500 directory for user certificates, certification authority certificates, revocations of certification authority, and revocations of user certificates. The following table lists the OIDs, their BER encoding, and their length prefixed hex format for use in CERT RRs:
OID已结合X.500目录定义，用于用户证书、证书颁发机构证书、证书颁发机构撤销和用户证书撤销。下表列出了在CERT RRs中使用的OID、其BER编码及其长度前缀十六进制格式：
id-at-userCertificate
= { joint-iso-ccitt(2) ds(5) at(4) 36 }
== 0x 03 55 04 24
id-at-cACertificate
= { joint-iso-ccitt(2) ds(5) at(4) 37 }
== 0x 03 55 04 25
id-at-authorityRevocationList
= { joint-iso-ccitt(2) ds(5) at(4) 38 }
== 0x 03 55 04 26
id-at-certificateRevocationList
= { joint-iso-ccitt(2) ds(5) at(4) 39 }
== 0x 03 55 04 27
id-at-userCertificate
= { joint-iso-ccitt(2) ds(5) at(4) 36 }
== 0x 03 55 04 24
id-at-cACertificate
= { joint-iso-ccitt(2) ds(5) at(4) 37 }
== 0x 03 55 04 25
id-at-authorityRevocationList
= { joint-iso-ccitt(2) ds(5) at(4) 38 }
== 0x 03 55 04 26
id-at-certificateRevocationList
= { joint-iso-ccitt(2) ds(5) at(4) 39 }
== 0x 03 55 04 27
It is recommended that certificate CERT RRs be stored under a domain name related to their subject, i.e., the name of the entity intended to control the private key corresponding to the public key being certified. It is recommended that certificate revocation list CERT RRs be stored under a domain name related to their issuer.
建议将证书证书RRs存储在与其主题相关的域名下，即用于控制与被认证公钥对应的私钥的实体名称。建议将证书吊销列表证书RRs存储在与其颁发者相关的域名下。
Following some of the guidelines below may result in the use in DNS names of characters that require DNS quoting which is to use a backslash followed by the octal representation of the ASCII code for the character such as \000 for NULL.
遵循以下一些指导原则可能会导致在DNS名称中使用需要DNS引号的字符，即使用反斜杠，后跟字符ASCII码的八进制表示形式，例如\000表示NULL。
Some X.509 versions permit multiple names to be associated with subjects and issuers under "Subject Alternate Name" and "Issuer Alternate Name". For example, x.509v3 has such Alternate Names with an ASN.1 specification as follows:
某些X.509版本允许在“受试者备选名称”和“发行人备选名称”下与受试者和发行人关联多个名称。例如，x.509v3具有以下具有ASN.1规范的备用名称：
GeneralName ::= CHOICE {
otherName [0] INSTANCE OF OTHER-NAME,
rfc822Name [1] IA5String,
dNSName [2] IA5String,
x400Address [3] EXPLICIT OR-ADDRESS.&Type,
directoryName [4] EXPLICIT Name,
ediPartyName [5] EDIPartyName,
uniformResourceIdentifier [6] IA5String,
iPAddress [7] OCTET STRING,
registeredID [8] OBJECT IDENTIFIER
}
GeneralName ::= CHOICE {
otherName [0] INSTANCE OF OTHER-NAME,
rfc822Name [1] IA5String,
dNSName [2] IA5String,
x400Address [3] EXPLICIT OR-ADDRESS.&Type,
directoryName [4] EXPLICIT Name,
ediPartyName [5] EDIPartyName,
uniformResourceIdentifier [6] IA5String,
iPAddress [7] OCTET STRING,
registeredID [8] OBJECT IDENTIFIER
}
The recommended locations of CERT storage are as follows, in priority order:
建议的证书存储位置按优先级顺序如下：
(1) If a domain name is included in the identification in the certificate or CRL, that should be used. (2) If a domain name is not included but an IP address is included, then the translation of that IP address into the appropriate inverse domain name should be used. (3) If neither of the above it used but a URI containing a domain name is present, that domain name should be used. (4) If none of the above is included but a character string name is included, then it should be treated as described for PGP names in 3.2 below. (5) If none of the above apply, then the distinguished name (DN) should be mapped into a domain name as specified in RFC 2247.
(1) 如果证书或CRL中的标识中包含域名，则应使用该域名。（2） 如果未包含域名，但包含IP地址，则应使用该IP地址到相应反向域名的转换。（3） 如果上面两个都没有使用，但存在包含域名的URI，则应使用该域名。（4） 如果未包含上述内容，但包含字符串名称，则应按照下文3.2中PGP名称的说明处理。（5） 如果上述任何一项都不适用，则应将可分辨名称（DN）映射到RFC 2247中指定的域名。
Example 1: Assume that an X.509v3 certificate is issued to /CN=John Doe/DC=Doe/DC=com/DC=xy/O=Doe Inc/C=XY/ with Subject Alternative names of (a) string "John (the Man) Doe", (b) domain name john-doe.com, and (c) uri <https://www.secure.john-doe.com:8080/>. Then the storage locations recommended, in priority order, would be (1) john-doe.com, (2) www.secure.john-doe.com, and (3) Doe.com.xy.
示例1：假设向/CN=John Doe/DC=Doe/DC=com/DC=xy/O=Doe Inc/C=xy/颁发了一份X.509v3证书，证书的主题可选名称为（a）字符串“John（the Man）Doe”，（b）域名John-Doe.com和（C）uri<https://www.secure.john-doe.com:8080/>. 然后，建议的存储位置按优先级顺序为（1）john-doe.com、（2）www.secure.john-doe.com和（3）doe.com.xy。
Example 2: Assume that an X.509v3 certificate is issued to /CN=James Hacker/L=Basingstoke/O=Widget Inc/C=GB/ with Subject Alternate names of (a) domain name widget.foo.example, (b) IPv4 address 10.251.13.201, and (c) string "James Hacker <hacker@mail.widget.foo.example>". Then the storage locations recommended, in priority order, would be (1) widget.foo.example, (2) 201.13.251.10.in-addr.arpa, and (3) hacker.mail.widget.foo.example.
示例2：假设向/CN=James Hacker/L=Basingstoke/O=Widget Inc/C=GB/颁发了一份X.509v3证书，证书的主题替换名为（a）域名Widget.foo.Example，（b）IPv4地址10.251.13.201，（C）字符串“James Hacker”<hacker@mail.widget.foo.example>". 然后，建议的存储位置按优先级顺序为（1）widget.foo.example、（2）201.13.251.10.in-addr.arpa和（3）hacker.mail.widget.foo.example。
PGP signed keys (certificates) use a general character string User ID [RFC 2440]. However, it is recommended by PGP that such names include the RFC 822 email address of the party, as in "Leslie Example <Leslie@host.example>". If such a format is used, the CERT should be under the standard translation of the email address into a domain name, which would be leslie.host.example in this case. If no RFC 822 name can be extracted from the string name no specific domain name is recommended.
PGP签名密钥（证书）使用通用字符串用户ID[RFC 2440]。但是，PGP建议此类名称包括当事人的RFC 822电子邮件地址，如“Leslie示例”中所示<Leslie@host.example>". 如果使用这种格式，证书应按照电子邮件地址到域名的标准翻译，在这种情况下，将是leslie.host.example。如果无法从字符串名称中提取RFC 822名称，则不建议使用特定域名。
Current Domain Name System (DNS) implementations are optimized for small transfers, typically not more than 512 bytes including overhead. While larger transfers will perform correctly and work is
当前的域名系统（DNS）实现针对小型传输进行了优化，包括开销在内，通常不超过512字节。而较大的传输将正确执行，并且工作正常
underway to make larger transfers more efficient, it is still advisable at this time to make every reasonable effort to minimize the size of certificates stored within the DNS. Steps that can be taken may include using the fewest possible optional or extensions fields and using short field values for variable length fields that must be included.
为了使更大的传输更有效，目前仍建议尽一切合理的努力最小化DNS中存储的证书大小。可以采取的步骤包括使用尽可能少的可选或扩展字段，以及对必须包含的可变长度字段使用短字段值。
Certificate types 0x0000 through 0x00FF and 0xFF00 through 0xFFFF can only be assigned by an IETF standards action [RFC 2434] (and this document assigns 0x0001 through 0x0003 and 0x00FD and 0x00FE). Certificate types 0x0100 through 0xFEFF are assigned through IETF Consensus [RFC 2434] based on RFC documentation of the certificate type. The availability of private types under 0x00FD and 0x00FE should satisfy most requirements for proprietary or private types.
证书类型0x0000到0x00FF以及0xFF00到0xFFFF只能由IETF标准操作[RFC 2434]分配（本文档分配0x0001到0x0003以及0x00FD和0x00FE）。基于证书类型的RFC文档，通过IETF共识[RFC 2434]分配证书类型0x0100到0xFEFF。0x00FD和0x00FE下私有类型的可用性应满足私有或私有类型的大多数要求。
By definition, certificates contain their own authenticating signature. Thus it is reasonable to store certificates in non-secure DNS zones or to retrieve certificates from DNS with DNS security checking not implemented or deferred for efficiency. The results MAY be trusted if the certificate chain is verified back to a known trusted key and this conforms with the user's security policy.
根据定义，证书包含它们自己的身份验证签名。因此，在非安全DNS区域中存储证书或从DNS检索证书是合理的，因为DNS安全检查未实施或延迟以提高效率。如果将证书链验证回已知的受信任密钥，并且这符合用户的安全策略，则结果可能是可信的。
Alternatively, if certificates are retrieved from a secure DNS zone with DNS security checking enabled and are verified by DNS security, the key within the retrieved certificate MAY be trusted without verifying the certificate chain if this conforms with the user's security policy.
或者，如果在启用DNS安全检查的情况下从安全DNS区域检索证书，并通过DNS安全性进行验证，则如果符合用户的安全策略，则可以信任检索到的证书中的密钥，而无需验证证书链。
CERT RRs are not used in connection with securing the DNS security additions so there are no security considerations related to CERT RRs and securing the DNS itself.
证书RRs不用于保护DNS安全添加，因此没有与证书RRs和保护DNS本身相关的安全注意事项。
References
工具书类
RFC 1034 Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
RFC 1034 Mockapetris，P.，“域名-概念和设施”，STD 13，RFC 1034，1987年11月。
RFC 1035 Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and Specifications", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
RFC 1035 Mockapetris，P.，“域名-实施和规范”，STD 13，RFC 1035，1987年11月。
RFC 2119 Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
RFC 2119 Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
RFC 2247 Kille, S., Wahl, M., Grimstad, A., Huber, R. and S. Sataluri, "Using Domains in LDAP/X.500 Distinguished Names", RFC 2247, January 1998.
RFC 2247 Kille，S.，Wahl，M.，Grimstad，A.，Huber，R.和S.Sataluri，“使用LDAP/X.500可分辨名称中的域”，RFC 2247，1998年1月。
RFC 2396 Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August 1998.
RFC 2396 Berners Lee，T.，Fielding，R.和L.Masinter，“统一资源标识符（URI）：通用语法”，RFC 2396，1998年8月。
RFC 2440 Callas, J., Donnerhacke, L., Finney, H. and R. Thayer, "OpenPGP Message Format", RFC 2240, November 1998.
RFC 2440 Callas，J.，Donnerhacke，L.，Finney，H.和R.Thayer，“OpenPGP消息格式”，RFC 2240，1998年11月。
RFC 2434 Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
RFC 2434 Narten，T.和H.Alvestrand，“在RFC中编写IANA注意事项部分的指南”，BCP 26，RFC 2434，1998年10月。
RFC 2535 Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions", RFC 2535, March 1999.
RFC 2535 Eastlake，D.，“域名系统（DNS）安全扩展”，RFC 25351999年3月。
RFC 2459 Housley, R., Ford, W., Polk, W. and D. Solo, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL Profile", RFC 2459, January 1999.
RFC 2459 Housley，R.，Ford，W.，Polk，W.和D.Solo，“互联网X.509公钥基础设施证书和CRL配置文件”，RFC 2459，1999年1月。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd IBM 65 Shindegan Hill Road RR#1 Carmel, NY 10512 USA
Donald E.Eastlake 3rd IBM美国纽约州卡梅尔新德干山路65号RR#1 10512
Phone: +1-914-784-7913 (w)
+1-914-276-2668 (h)
Fax: +1-914-784-3833 (w-fax)
EMail: dee3@us.ibm.com
Phone: +1-914-784-7913 (w)
+1-914-276-2668 (h)
Fax: +1-914-784-3833 (w-fax)
EMail: dee3@us.ibm.com
Olafur Gudmundsson TIS Labs at Network Associates 3060 Washington Rd, Route 97 Glenwood MD 21738
Olafur Gudmundsson TIS实验室位于美国马里兰州格兰伍德97号路华盛顿路3060号Network Associates，邮编21738
Phone: +1 443-259-2389
EMail: ogud@tislabs.com
Phone: +1 443-259-2389
EMail: ogud@tislabs.com
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（1999年）。版权所有。
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.
本文件及其译本可复制并提供给他人，对其进行评论或解释或协助其实施的衍生作品可全部或部分编制、复制、出版和分发，不受任何限制，前提是上述版权声明和本段包含在所有此类副本和衍生作品中。但是，不得以任何方式修改本文件本身，例如删除版权通知或对互联网协会或其他互联网组织的引用，除非出于制定互联网标准的需要，在这种情况下，必须遵循互联网标准过程中定义的版权程序，或根据需要将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
上述授予的有限许可是永久性的，互联网协会或其继承人或受让人不会撤销。
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
本文件和其中包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，互联网协会和互联网工程任务组否认所有明示或暗示的保证，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。