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

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)

[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?

[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.

[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

[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?

(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

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/

# 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/

# 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/