# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.
## Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
The Working Group broadly supports this document.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942] recommends) or elsewhere
As noted in the document's introduction, this work is in support of work being
done as part of the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP):
"The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has specified several
Network Functions (NFs) as part of the service-based architecture
within the 5G System. The 49 NF types that are defined for 3GPP
Release 17 listed in Table 220.127.116.11.3-1 of [TS29.510], and each NF
type is identified by a short ASCII string.
Operators of 5G systems make use of an internal PKI to identify
interface instances in the NFs in a 5G system. X.509v3 public key
certificates [RFC5280] are used, and the primary function of a
certificate is to bind a public key to the identity of an entity that
holds the corresponding private key, known as the certificate
subject. The certificate subject and the subjectAltName certificate
extension can be used to support identity-based access control
## Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
The 3GPP folks have reviewed the document, and have been communicating with the
working group to facilitate getting the document passed in a timely manner.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such formal expert review required.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools] for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in [RFC 8342]?
The document does not contain a YANG module.
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
The document shepherd had an ASN.1 expert review and compile the ASN.1 fragments
and modules that appear in the draft.
## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
Yes, the document is clearly written and ready.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
The shepherd reviewed the Security Area checklist and found no issues.
No other reviews are believed necessary.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Proposed Standard. The document correctly states this status and the Datatracker
is up to date.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79]? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
There is one disclosure that has been filed related to this document:
The shepherd reached out to all the authors by private email. All authors
confirmed they do not have nor are they aware of any undisclosed intellectual
property related to this document.
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
All authors confirmed their willingness to be listed as authors when contacted
by the document shepherd.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
The shepherd reviewed the content guidelines and the document. The reference to
RFC 5246 is intentional, as the older TLS 1.2 is being compared to the newer
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References].
References are categorized correctly.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
Yes, the 3GPP specifications are available at: https://www.3gpp.org/specifications
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967] and [BCP
97]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry]? If so,
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126]).
The document asks IANA to allocate two OIDs, and correctly states the
appropriate registries to allocate them under.
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
There are no new IANA registries.