X.509 Certificate Extension for 5G Network Function Types
RFC 9310

Yes

Roman Danyliw

No Objection

Andrew Alston
Erik Kline
John Scudder
Martin Duke
Murray Kucherawy
Paul Wouters
Robert Wilton
Warren Kumari
Éric Vyncke

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

Roman Danyliw
Yes
Andrew Alston
No Objection
Erik Kline
No Objection
Comment (2022-11-27 for -07) 
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes-07
CC @ekline

## Comments

### S3

* When there are more than one NFType elements in an NFTypes extension
  is there a RECOMMENDED (or even REQUIRED) ordering?
John Scudder
No Objection
Martin Duke
No Objection
Comment (2022-11-30) 
# Martin Duke, TSV AD

## Comments

I don't love that there isn't any sort of FCFS registry to avoid collisions in NF type. I don't understand the division between 3GPP, IETF, and IANA here, but it would be nice to straighten this out. It would otherwise be a matter of time before there was some sort of collision between similarly named proprietary functions.
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Paul Wouters
No Objection
Comment (2022-11-30) 
Thanks for the document.

I just have one question.

   This extension MUST NOT be marked critical.

Why not? One can argue this is greenField deployment but it would be a rather big one :P

From what I am reading, this extension is required for 5g, so why not mark it critical if
the extension is not understood?
Robert Wilton
No Objection
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment (2022-11-28 for -07) 
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes-07
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. 

Please find below one non-blocking COMMENT point (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Tim Hollebeek for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *but* the justification of the intended status is missing. 

Other thanks to Bernie Volz for his Internet directorate review at (and I read that Russ has already replied to the review):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes-06-intdir-telechat-volz-2022-11-02/

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### 3GPP Liaison

Was there a need for an official review by 3GPP ? https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/ does not indicate any formal liaison.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. 

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments