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

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

I believe this is ready for publication too.

spt

> On Jan 9, 2023, at 01:45, John Mattsson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> All the best for the new year!
> 
> Looks great and ready for publication. 3GPP published a new Release 17 version of 33.310. I have updated the reference in the attached xml-file.
> 
> Cheers,
> John
>  
> From: Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]>
> Date: Saturday, 31 December 2022 at 22:15
> To: John Mattsson <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Russ Housley <[e-mail]>, Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>, Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Sean Turner <[e-mail]>, RFC Editor <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9310 <draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes-08> for your review
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Happy New Year’s Eve!  
> 
> If I understand correctly, the document should match what appears below.  The text has been updated to reflect the order of NF Types shown below - please see the updates and let us know if any other changes are needed or if you approve the RFC for publication. 
> 
> The current files are available here: 
> 
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310.xml
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310.txt
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310.html
> 
> Diffs highlighting the most recent update only: 
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310-lastdiff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> AUTH48 diff: 
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310-auth48diff.html
> 
> Comprehensive diffs: 
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310-diff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/sg
> 
> 
> 
> > On Dec 22, 2022, at 11:55 PM, John Mattsson <john.mattsson=[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Russ wrote:
> > >That matches the most recent version of Appendix B.
> > 
> > Just to be clear. Your generated table does not match 
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310.txt
> > Your table matches the most recent version of Appendix B after the ordering error that I pointed out is fixed. The document should be updated to look like your table.
> >  
> > Cheers,
> > John
> > 
> > From: Russ Housley <[e-mail]>
> > Date: Thursday, 22 December 2022 at 20:12
> > To: John Mattsson <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>, Sean Turner <[e-mail]>, Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>, RFC Editor <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Roman D. Danyliw <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9310 <draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes-08> for your review
> > 
> > John:
> >  
> > We were asked about ordering during IESG Evaluation, so I think we should keep it.
> >  
> > When I use python to sort the NF Types, I get this:
> >  
> >        "5G_DDNMF"        "LMF"             "PKMF"            
> >        "5G_EIR"          "MBSF"            "SCEF"            
> >        "AANF"            "MBSTF"           "SCP"             
> >        "ADRF"            "MB_SMF"          "SCSAS"           
> >        "AF"              "MB_UPF"          "SCSCF"           
> >        "AMF"             "MFAF"            "SEPP"            
> >        "AUSF"            "MME"             "SMF"             
> >        "BSF"             "MNPF"            "SMSF"            
> >        "CBCF"            "N3IWF"           "SMS_GMSC"        
> >        "CEF"             "NEF"             "SMS_IWMSC"       
> >        "CHF"             "NRF"             "SOR_AF"          
> >        "DCCF"            "NSACF"           "SPAF"            
> >        "DRA"             "NSSAAF"          "TSCTSF"          
> >        "EASDF"           "NSSF"            "UCMF"            
> >        "GBA_BSF"         "NSWOF"           "UDM"             
> >        "GMLC"            "NWDAF"           "UDR"             
> >        "HSS"             "PANF"            "UDSF"            
> >        "ICSCF"           "PCF"             "UPF"             
> >        "IMS_AS"          "PCSCF"           
> >  
> > That matches the most recent version of Appendix B.
> >  
> > Russ
> > 
> > 
> > On Dec 22, 2022, at 1:32 AM, John Mattsson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >  
> > Thanks Lynne,
> > 
> > In ASCII, underscore has the value 95 and comes after all capital letters. So the ascending lexicographic order of the four types starting with "MB" is:
> >  
> > "MBSF"
> > "MBSTF"
> > "MB_SMF"
> > "MB_UPF"
> >  
> > @Russ, @Sean, if the sorting is not strictly needed and only for human readers, an alternative could be to remove the MUST in the sentence on ordering.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > John
> >  
> > From: Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
> > Date: Thursday, 22 December 2022 at 00:46
> > To: John Mattsson <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Russ Housley <[e-mail]>, Sean Turner <[e-mail]>, Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>, RFC Editor <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Roman D. Danyliw <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9310 <draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes-08> for your review
> > 
> > Hi, John.
> > 
> > We have updated this document per your notes below.
> > 
> > The latest files are posted here:
> > 
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310.txt
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310.pdf
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310.html
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310.xml
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310-diff.html
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310-rfcdiff.html
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310-auth48diff.html
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310-lastdiff.html
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310-lastrfcdiff.html
> > 
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310-xmldiff1.html
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310-xmldiff2.html
> > 
> > We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
> > 
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9310
> > 
> > Thank you!
> > 
> > RFC Editor/lb
> > 
> > > On Dec 21, 2022, at 2:31 PM, John Mattsson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi Lynne,
> > > 
> > > >Please let us know if we should (1) change "49" to "56" in the Introduction >to reflect the latest version of [TS29.510] and (2) update the list in >Appendix A with the seven additional values.
> > > 
> > > Yes, please do change "49" to "56" and update the appendix. Release 17 is now frozen, so 56 should be the final number of NF Types in Release 17.
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > John
> > 
> > 
> > >  From: Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
> > > Date: Wednesday, 21 December 2022 at 22:47
> > > To: John Mattsson <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: Russ Housley <[e-mail]>, Sean Turner <[e-mail]>, Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>, RFC Editor <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Roman D. Danyliw <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9310 <draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes-08> for your review
> > > Hi, John.
> > > 
> > > While verifying the cited information in the updated 3GPP technical specifications that you listed below, we found that there are now 56 NF Types listed in Table 6.1.6.3.3-1 of [TS29.510], in contrast to the previous 49 (as noted in the Introduction:  "There are 49 NF Types defined for 3GPP Release 17; they are listed in Table 6.1.6.3.3-1 of [TS29.510]".
> > > 
> > > Please let us know if we should (1) change "49" to "56" in the Introduction to reflect the latest version of [TS29.510] and (2) update the list in Appendix A with the seven additional values.
> > > 
> > > We will wait to hear from you before proceeding.
> > > 
> > > Thank you!
> > > 
> > > RFC Editor/lb
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > On Dec 21, 2022, at 4:44 AM, John Mattsson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Thanks Lynne,
> > >  I approve of the document with or without changes.
> > >  I have thoroughly reviewed the document. I have three suggested changes, see below.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > - "the NFTypes MUST appear in ascending sort order."
> > >   "listed below in alphabetical order"
> > >  The sort order in the normative sentence is not defined. As it is a normative MUST I think it needs to be exactly defined. I don't think the term alphabetic order is well-defined when some of the strings contain numerals and non-letter characters such as '_' and '-'.
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabetical_order
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicographic_order
> > > 
> > > Suggestion:
> > > 
> > > OLD: the NFTypes MUST appear in ascending sort order.
> > > NEW: the NFTypes MUST appear in ascending lexigraphic order using the ASCII values.
> > > 
> > > OLD: listed below in alphabetical order
> > > NEW: listed below in ascending lexigraphic order
> > > 
> > >  - I think it is good to specify that it is 3GPP Release 17 in some more places (Release 18 will add at least 7 more NF Types).
> > >  OLD: See Appendix A for values defined in 3GPP
> > > NEW: See Appendix A for values defined in 3GPP Release 17
> > >  OLD: these enumeration values are listed below
> > > NEW: these enumeration values in 3GPP Release 17 are listed below
> > >   - The 3GPP references should probably be to the latest published Release 17 versions.
> > >  OLD:
> > >               17)", 3GPP TS:29.510 V17.5.0, March 2022,
> > >               <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-23a450388a88802a&q=1&e=07ebb231-8128-45b6-9f8c-6c44b3e6db50&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.3gpp.org%2Fftp%2FSpecs%2F
> > >               archive/29_series/29.510/29510-h50.zip>.
> > > NEW:
> > >               17)", 3GPP TS:29.510 V17.8.0, December 2022,
> > >               <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-23a450388a88802a&q=1&e=07ebb231-8128-45b6-9f8c-6c44b3e6db50&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.3gpp.org%2Fftp%2FSpecs%2F
> > >               archive/29_series/29.510/29510-h80.zip>.
> > >  OLD:
> > >               (Release 17)", 3GPP TS:33.310 V17.2.0, March 2022,
> > >               <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-23a450388a88802a&q=1&e=07ebb231-8128-45b6-9f8c-6c44b3e6db50&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.3gpp.org%2Fftp%2FSpecs%2F
> > >               archive/33_series/33.310/33310-h20.zip>.
> > > NEW:
> > >               (Release 17)", 3GPP TS:33.310 V17.4.0, September 2022,
> > >               <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-23a450388a88802a&q=1&e=07ebb231-8128-45b6-9f8c-6c44b3e6db50&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.3gpp.org%2Fftp%2FSpecs%2F
> > >               archive/33_series/33.310/33310-h40.zip>.
> > > 
> > > OLD:
> > >               (Release 17)", 3GPP TS:29.571 V17.5.0, March 2022,
> > >               <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-23a450388a88802a&q=1&e=07ebb231-8128-45b6-9f8c-6c44b3e6db50&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.3gpp.org%2Fftp%2FSpecs%2F
> > >               archive/29_series/29.571/29571-h50.zip>.
> > > NEW:
> > >               (Release 17)", 3GPP TS:29.571 V17.8.0, December 2022,
> > >               <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-23a450388a88802a&q=1&e=07ebb231-8128-45b6-9f8c-6c44b3e6db50&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.3gpp.org%2Fftp%2FSpecs%2F
> > >               archive/29_series/29.571/29571-h80.zip>.
> > >  Cheers,
> > > John
> > >  From: Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
> > > Date: Tuesday, 20 December 2022 at 21:50
> > > To: Russ Housley <[e-mail]>, Sean Turner <[e-mail]>, Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: RFC Editor <[e-mail]>, John Mattsson <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<[e-mail]>, Roman D. Danyliw <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9310 <draft-ietf-lamps-5g-nftypes-08> for your review
> > > Hi, Russ, Sean, and Daniel.
> > > 
> > > Thank you for your prompt replies!
> > > 
> > > Russ, thank you for addressing our questions so quickly!  We have updated this document per your notes below.
> > > 
> > > Regarding this item:
> > > 
> > > >> 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")
> > > > 
> > > > The term "NFTypes" is used to refer to the ASN.1 defined type.
> > > > 
> > > > The term "NF Types" is used to refer the network function defined by 3GPP.
> > > 
> > > We did not make any changes.  Please let us know if we missed anything.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The latest files are posted here (you may need to refresh your browser):
> > > 
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310.txt
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310.pdf
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310.html
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310.xml
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310-diff.html
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310-rfcdiff.html
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310-auth48diff.html
> > > 
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310-xmldiff1.html
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9310-xmldiff2.html
> > > 
> > > Please let us know whether you approve this document in its current form or additional updates are needed.
> > > 
> > > Please note that I will be at work tomorrow and then will be away for the Holidays.
> > > 
> > > Thanks again!
> > > 
> > > RFC Editor/lb
> > > 
> > > > On Dec 20, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Daniel Migault <daniel.migault=[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Same for me. Thanks for handling this.
> > > > Yours,
> > > > Daniel
> > > 
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > > On Dec 20, 2022, at 9:26 AM, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > All of these seem fine to me.
> > > > 
> > > >> On Dec 20, 2022, at 12:02, Russ Housley <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > > On Dec 20, 2022, at 9:02 AM, Russ Housley <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >> 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 -->
> > > > 
> > > > Please use "5G NFTypes in ..."
> > > > 
> > > >> 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 -->
> > > > 
> > > > I assume that is fine with John.  That is fine with me.
> > > > 
> > > >> 3) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
> > > >> title) for use on <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. -->
> > > > 
> > > > Digital Certificate.
> > > > 
> > > >> 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3:  Should the section title be "NFTypes
> > > >> Certificate Extension" instead of "Network Functions Certificate
> > > >> Extension"?
> > > >> 
> > > >> Original:
> > > >> 3.  Network Functions Certificate Extension -->
> > > > 
> > > > I think it would be better to use "Network Function Types 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. -->
> > > > 
> > > > Yes.  In Section 3, the artwork is ASN.1 source code. However, it is repeated in Section 4, where it is already marked as ASN.1 source code.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >> 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://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501cfaf3-313273af-454445554331-88c49a0b61d7083d&q=1&e=2266d863-4c5f-425c-8672-663bd81b0d0a&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.3gpp.org%2Fftp%2FSpecs%2F
> > > >>           archive/23_series/23.003/23003-h50.zip>. -->
> > > > 
> > > > This can be dropped.  It was previously cited, but that text was dropped from the document.
> > > > 
> > > >> 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) -->
> > > > 
> > > > The program that was used to "dump" the certificate uses short forms of all of the extension names.  I would have to edit all of them, not just clientAuth.  I think we should leave this alone.
> > > > 
> > > >> 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. -->
> > > > 
> > > > I do not see any language that causes concern.
> > > > 
> > > >> 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)
> > > > 
> > > > Please use 5G System
> > > > 
> > > >> ASN.1 module / ASN.1 Module (in running text)
> > > >> (e.g., "an ASN.1 module", "the ASN.1 Module")
> > > > 
> > > > Please use 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?)
> > > > 
> > > > In Section 3, please use "id-pe-nftype" to make it match the rest of the document.
> > > > 
> > > >>  Side note:  We also see "id-mod-nftype" (i.e., the singular form
> > > >>    "nftype".)
> > > > 
> > > > The singular is correct.
> > > > 
> > > >> 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")
> > > > 
> > > > The term "NFTypes" is used to refer to the ASN.1 defined type.
> > > > 
> > > > The term "NF Types" is used to refer the network function defined by 3GPP.
> > > > 
> > > >> NFType certificate extension (2 instances) /
> > > >>  NFTypes certificate extension (11 instances)
> > > > 
> > > > Please use "NFTypes certificate extension" in all places.
> > > > 
> > > >> subjectAltName certificate extension /
> > > >>  SubjectAltName certificate extension (running text in
> > > >>    Section 1 and Appendix B)
> > > > 
> > > > Please use "SubjectAltName certificate extension" in all places.
> > > > 
> > > >> b) Would you like spacing before the instances of "::=" to be
> > > >> consistent?
> > > >> 
> > > >> For example,
> > > >> id-pe-nftypes  OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=
> > > >> ...
> > > >> NFTypes ::= SEQUENCE SIZE
> > > >> ... -->
> > > > 
> > > > One space is fine.
> > > > 
> > > > Russ
> > > >
> <rfc9310-JPM.xml>