RFC 7633: X.509v3 Transport Layer Security (TLS) Feature Extension
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
The purpose of the TLS feature extension is to prevent downgrade attacks that are not otherwise prevented by the TLS protocol. In particular, the TLS feature extension may be used to mandate support for revocation checking features in the TLS protocol such as Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) stapling. Informing clients that an OCSP status response will always be stapled permits an immediate failure in the case that the response is not stapled. This in turn prevents a denial-of-service attack that might otherwise be possible.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC7633
- Published
- October 2015
- Authors
- P. Hallam-Baker
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- —
- Pages
- 11
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 7590Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP)Current
June 2015
- RFC 7525Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)Obsoleted
May 2015
- RFC 7465Prohibiting RC4 Cipher SuitesUpdated
February 2015
- RFC 7457Summarizing Known Attacks on Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram TLS (DTLS)Current
February 2015
- RFC 7427Signature Authentication in the Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)Current
January 2015
- RFC 7919Negotiated Finite Field Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral Parameters for Transport Layer Security (TLS)Current
August 2016
- RFC 6960X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSPUpdated
June 2013
- RFC 8398Internationalized Email Addresses in X.509 CertificatesObsoleted
May 2018
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?