Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9310 <draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes-08> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!-- [rfced] Running (abbreviated) document title (as seen in PDF
output):  Should "5G NFType in ..." be "5G NFTypes in ..."?

Original:
 5G NFType in X.509 Certificates -->


2) <!-- [rfced] Author names:  Per feedback from John Preuß Mattsson
for RFC 9175 (and per RFC 9191), we updated John's name so that the
listing on the first page matches those for RFCs 9175 and 9191.
Please let us know any concerns.

Original:
 J. P. Mattsson

Currently:
 J. Preuß Mattsson -->


3) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
title) for use on <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. -->


4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3:  Should the section title be "NFTypes
Certificate Extension" instead of "Network Functions Certificate
Extension"?

Original:
 3.  Network Functions Certificate Extension -->


5) <!-- [rfced] Should any of the <artwork> elements in this document
be changed to <sourcecode>?  Please see
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt>.  Also,
if <https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt>
does not contain an applicable type, please let us know. -->


6) <!-- [rfced] Normative References:  [TS23.003] is not cited anywhere
in the document.  Please let us know where it should be cited.

Original:
 [TS23.003] 3rd Generation Partnership Project, "Technical
            Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; Numbering,
            addressing and identification (Release 17)", 3GPP
            TS:23.003 V17.5.0 , March 2022,
            <https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/
            archive/23_series/23.003/23003-h50.zip>. -->


7) <!-- [rfced] Appendix B:  Would you like to use "id-kp-clientAuth"
instead of "clientAuth"?  We ask because all other such "OBJECT
IDENTIFIER" entries in this section seem to match up pretty well.

Original:
 06   8:        OBJECT IDENTIFIER clientAuth (1 3 6 1 5 5 7 3 2) -->


8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
online Style Guide at
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>,
and let us know if any changes are needed.

Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this
should still be reviewed as a best practice. -->


9) <!-- [rfced] Please let us know if any changes are needed for the
following:

a) The following terms appear to be used inconsistently in this
document.  Please let us know which form is preferred.

 5G System / 5G system (in running text)

 ASN.1 module / ASN.1 Module (in running text)
(e.g., "an ASN.1 module", "the ASN.1 Module")

 id-pe-nftype / id-pe-nftypes (We ask because the same OID value
   is shown for both spellings.  Also, please note that IANA uses
   the latter form on
   <https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.txt>;
   are both forms correct?)

   Side note:  We also see "id-mod-nftype" (i.e., the singular form
     "nftype".)

 NF type(s) / NF Type(s) / NFType(s) (in running text, e.g.,
   "each NF type", "Each NFType", "that specify the NF Types",
   "If the NFTypes contain")

 NFType certificate extension (2 instances) /
   NFTypes certificate extension (11 instances)

 subjectAltName certificate extension /
   SubjectAltName certificate extension (running text in
     Section 1 and Appendix B)

b) Would you like spacing before the instances of "::=" to be
consistent?

For example,
 id-pe-nftypes  OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=
...
 NFTypes ::= SEQUENCE SIZE
... -->


Thank you.

RFC Editor



On Dec 19, 2022, at 4:19 PM, [e-mail] wrote:


*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2022/12/19

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
   follows:

   <!-- [rfced] ... -->

   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
   change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
   - contact information
   - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
   (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
   <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

   *  your coauthors
   
   *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

   *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
      IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
      responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
     
   *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
      to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
      list:
     
     *  More info:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
     
     *  The archive itself:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

     *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
        of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
        If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
        have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
        [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
        its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
 — OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310-xmldiff1.html

The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
diff files of the XML.  

Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9310

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9310 (draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes-08)

Title            : X.509 Certificate Extension for 5G Network Function Types
Author(s)        : R. Housley, S. Turner, J. Preuß Mattsson, D. Migault
WG Chair(s)      : Russ Housley, Tim Hollebeek
Area Director(s) : Roman Danyliw, Paul Wouters