RFC 5019: The Lightweight Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) Profile for High-Volume Environments
This RFC has been replaced. Do not implement against it for new work — it was formally obsoleted by RFC 9919.
Current version: RFC 9919 — The Lightweight Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) Profile for High-Volume Environments
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This specification defines a profile of the Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) that addresses the scalability issues inherent when using OCSP in large scale (high volume) Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) environments and/or in PKI environments that require a lightweight solution to minimize communication bandwidth and client-side processing. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC5019
- Published
- September 2007
- Authors
- A. Deacon; R. Hurst
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- sec
- Pages
- 22
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Referenced by
2 later RFCs formally update or obsolete part of this document.
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 6277Online Certificate Status Protocol Algorithm AgilityObsoleted
June 2011
- RFC 6664S/MIME Capabilities for Public Key DefinitionsCurrent
July 2012
- RFC 6960X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSPUpdated
June 2013
- RFC 6961The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Multiple Certificate Status Request ExtensionObsoleted
June 2013
- RFC 8739Support for Short-Term, Automatically Renewed (STAR) Certificates in the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME)Current
March 2020
- RFC 5940Additional Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Revocation Information ChoicesCurrent
August 2010
- RFC 7234Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): CachingObsoleted
June 2014
- RFC 9111HTTP CachingCurrent
June 2022
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?