X.509 Certificate Extension for 5G Network Function Types
RFC 9310
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2023-02-22
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events': Correcting status based upon 3GPP clarification request |
2023-02-22
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Jouni Korhonen was marked no-response |
2023-01-12
|
08 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 9310, changed abstract to 'This document specifies the certificate extension for including Network Function Types … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 9310, changed abstract to 'This document specifies the certificate extension for including Network Function Types (NFTypes) for the 5G System in X.509 v3 public key certificates as profiled in RFC 5280.', changed pages to 11, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2023-01-12, changed IESG state to RFC Published) |
2023-01-12
|
08 | (System) | RFC published |
2023-01-10
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2022-12-19
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 |
2022-12-14
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2022-12-14
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2022-12-14
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2022-12-14
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2022-12-13
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2022-12-09
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2022-12-09
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2022-12-09
|
08 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2022-12-09
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2022-12-09
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2022-12-09
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2022-12-09
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2022-12-09
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2022-12-03
|
08 | Barry Leiba | Closed request for Last Call review by ARTART with state 'Overtaken by Events': Document has finished IESG processing |
2022-12-03
|
08 | Barry Leiba | Assignment of request for Last Call review by ARTART to Spencer Dawkins was marked no-response |
2022-12-01
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2022-12-01
|
08 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2022-12-01
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2022-12-01
|
08 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2022-11-30
|
08 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2022-11-30
|
08 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the document. I just have one question. This extension MUST NOT be marked critical. Why not? One can argue this … [Ballot comment] 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? |
2022-11-30
|
08 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2022-11-30
|
08 | Martin Duke | [Ballot comment] # Martin Duke, TSV AD ## Comments I don't love that there isn't any sort of FCFS registry to avoid collisions in NF … [Ballot comment] # 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. |
2022-11-30
|
08 | Martin Duke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke |
2022-11-30
|
08 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2022-11-30
|
08 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2022-11-30
|
08 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andrew Alston |
2022-11-29
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2022-11-29
|
08 | Russ Housley | New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes-08.txt |
2022-11-29
|
08 | Russ Housley | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley) |
2022-11-29
|
08 | Russ Housley | Uploaded new revision |
2022-11-28
|
07 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] # 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 … [Ballot comment] # 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 |
2022-11-28
|
07 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2022-11-27
|
07 | Erik Kline | [Ballot comment] # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes-07 CC @ekline ## Comments ### S3 * When there are more than one NFType elements in an … [Ballot comment] # 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? |
2022-11-27
|
07 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2022-11-25
|
07 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2022-11-21
|
07 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2022-11-07
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2022-11-07
|
07 | Russ Housley | New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes-07.txt |
2022-11-07
|
07 | Russ Housley | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley) |
2022-11-07
|
07 | Russ Housley | Uploaded new revision |
2022-11-03
|
06 | Ned Smith | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Ned Smith. Sent review to list. |
2022-11-02
|
06 | Bernie Volz | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Bernie Volz. Sent review to list. |
2022-10-31
|
06 | Bernie Volz | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Bernie Volz |
2022-10-31
|
06 | Bernie Volz | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Bernie Volz |
2022-10-29
|
06 | Éric Vyncke | Requested Telechat review by INTDIR |
2022-10-27
|
06 | Roman Danyliw | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2022-12-01 |
2022-10-27
|
06 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot has been issued |
2022-10-27
|
06 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2022-10-27
|
06 | Roman Danyliw | Created "Approve" ballot |
2022-10-27
|
06 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2022-10-27
|
06 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot writeup was changed |
2022-10-27
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2022-10-26
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2022-10-26
|
06 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete. First, in the SMI Security for PKIX Certificate Extension registry on the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/ the temporary registration for Decimal: 34 Description: id-pe-nftypes will be made permanent and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]. Second, in the SMI Security for PKIX Module Identifier registry also on the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/ the temporary registration for Decimal: 106 Description: id-mod-nftype will be made permanent and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]. The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Lead IANA Services Specialist |
2022-10-19
|
06 | Russ Housley | New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes-06.txt |
2022-10-19
|
06 | Russ Housley | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley) |
2022-10-19
|
06 | Russ Housley | Uploaded new revision |
2022-10-17
|
05 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Spencer Dawkins |
2022-10-17
|
05 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Spencer Dawkins |
2022-10-17
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2022-10-17
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2022-10-13
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ned Smith |
2022-10-13
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ned Smith |
2022-10-13
|
05 | Robert Sparks | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. Sent review to list. |
2022-10-13
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2022-10-13
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2022-10-13
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2022-10-13
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-10-27): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes@ietf.org, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org, spasm@ietf.org, tim.hollebeek@digicert.com … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-10-27): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes@ietf.org, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org, spasm@ietf.org, tim.hollebeek@digicert.com Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (X.509 Certificate Extension for 5G Network Function Types) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Limited Additional Mechanisms for PKIX and SMIME WG (lamps) to consider the following document: - 'X.509 Certificate Extension for 5G Network Function Types' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-10-27. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document specifies the certificate extension for including Network Function Types (NFTypes) for the 5G System in X.509v3 public key certificates as profiled in RFC 5280. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5732/ |
2022-10-13
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2022-10-13
|
05 | Roman Danyliw | Last call was requested |
2022-10-13
|
05 | Roman Danyliw | Last call announcement was generated |
2022-10-13
|
05 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot approval text was generated |
2022-10-13
|
05 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot writeup was generated |
2022-10-13
|
05 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2022-10-12
|
05 | (System) | Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed) |
2022-10-12
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2022-10-12
|
05 | Russ Housley | New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes-05.txt |
2022-10-12
|
05 | Russ Housley | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley) |
2022-10-12
|
05 | Russ Housley | Uploaded new revision |
2022-10-12
|
04 | (System) | Changed action holders to Russ Housley, Sean Turner, Roman Danyliw, John Preuß Mattsson, Daniel Migault (IESG state changed) |
2022-10-12
|
04 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2022-09-30
|
04 | (System) | Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed) |
2022-09-30
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2022-09-30
|
04 | Russ Housley | New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes-04.txt |
2022-09-30
|
04 | Russ Housley | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley) |
2022-09-30
|
04 | Russ Housley | Uploaded new revision |
2022-09-28
|
03 | Roman Danyliw | AD Review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/0y5XYhdC61bXdqV_wcpb0th2ARc/ |
2022-09-28
|
03 | (System) | Changed action holders to Russ Housley, Sean Turner, Roman Danyliw, John Preuß Mattsson, Daniel Migault (IESG state changed) |
2022-09-28
|
03 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested |
2022-09-28
|
03 | Tim Hollebeek | # 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 … # 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][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. 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? No. 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.) No. 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][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? 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 6.1.6.3.3-1 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 decisions." ## 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][4] 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][5]? 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][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? 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][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? 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][7]? 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: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5732/ 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][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (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 TLS 1.3. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. 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 references? Yes, the 3GPP specifications are available at: https://www.3gpp.org/specifications 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 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? No. 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. No. 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][11]). 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. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2022-09-28
|
03 | Tim Hollebeek | Responsible AD changed to Roman Danyliw |
2022-09-28
|
03 | Tim Hollebeek | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2022-09-28
|
03 | Tim Hollebeek | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2022-09-28
|
03 | Tim Hollebeek | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2022-09-28
|
03 | Tim Hollebeek | # 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 … # 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][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. 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? No. 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.) No. 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][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? 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 6.1.6.3.3-1 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 decisions." ## 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][4] 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][5]? 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][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? 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][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? 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][7]? 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: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5732/ 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][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (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 TLS 1.3. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. 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 references? Yes, the 3GPP specifications are available at: https://www.3gpp.org/specifications 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 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? No. 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. No. 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][11]). 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. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2022-09-26
|
03 | Russ Housley | New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes-03.txt |
2022-09-26
|
03 | Russ Housley | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley) |
2022-09-26
|
03 | Russ Housley | Uploaded new revision |
2022-09-26
|
02 | Tim Hollebeek | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2022-09-26
|
02 | Tim Hollebeek | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2022-09-26
|
02 | Tim Hollebeek | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2022-09-26
|
02 | Tim Hollebeek | Notification list changed to tim.hollebeek@digicert.com because the document shepherd was set |
2022-09-26
|
02 | Tim Hollebeek | Document shepherd changed to Tim Hollebeek |
2022-09-08
|
02 | Tim Hollebeek | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2022-09-08
|
02 | Russ Housley | New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes-02.txt |
2022-09-08
|
02 | Russ Housley | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley) |
2022-09-08
|
02 | Russ Housley | Uploaded new revision |
2022-09-06
|
01 | Russ Housley | New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes-01.txt |
2022-09-06
|
01 | Russ Housley | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Russ Housley) |
2022-09-06
|
01 | Russ Housley | Uploaded new revision |
2022-09-01
|
00 | Tim Hollebeek | This document now replaces draft-housley-lamps-3g-nftypes instead of None |
2022-09-01
|
00 | Russ Housley | New version available: draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes-00.txt |
2022-09-01
|
00 | Tim Hollebeek | WG -00 approved |
2022-09-01
|
00 | Russ Housley | Set submitter to "Russ Housley ", replaces to draft-housley-lamps-3g-nftypes and sent approval email to group chairs: lamps-chairs@ietf.org |
2022-09-01
|
00 | Russ Housley | Uploaded new revision |