Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lamps-nf-eku-02
review-ietf-lamps-nf-eku-02-intdir-lc-muite-2023-09-10-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lamps-nf-eku
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2023-09-08
Requested 2023-08-25
Authors Tirumaleswar Reddy.K , Jani Ekman , Daniel Migault
I-D last updated 2023-09-10
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Intdir Last Call review of -02 by Benson Muite (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -02 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Benson Muite
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-lamps-nf-eku by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/ON2oP3zul0b_W_tvuKPAacnhz44
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 05)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2023-09-10
review-ietf-lamps-nf-eku-02-intdir-lc-muite-2023-09-10-00
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for <draft-ietf-lamps-nf-eku>.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet 
Area Directors.  Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these
comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF
contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments
that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/ 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>.

Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as
NO OBJECTION.

Summary:
This draft proposes to add three OIDs in the "SMI Security for PKIX
Extended Key Purpose" registry.  An additional OID is also proposed
for the "SMI Security for PKIX Module Identifier".  These are needed
to ensure interoperation between 5G network service providers.


Comments:
The draft is clear and has a similar structure to other RFCs that
generate new IANA SMI Security identifiers and objects, for
example RFC9289.

It may be helpful to to have [X.680] and [X.690] as a normative
references rather than informative references.