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

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Looks good to me.  Please proceed with publication.

Russ


> On Dec 21, 2022, at 6:43 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/
>>              archive/29_series/29.510/29510-h50.zip>.
>> NEW:
>>              17)", 3GPP TS:29.510 V17.8.0, December 2022,
>>              <https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/
>>              archive/29_series/29.510/29510-h80.zip>.
>> OLD:
>>              (Release 17)", 3GPP TS:33.310 V17.2.0, March 2022,
>>              <https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/
>>              archive/33_series/33.310/33310-h20.zip>.
>> NEW:
>>              (Release 17)", 3GPP TS:33.310 V17.4.0, September 2022,
>>              <https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/
>>              archive/33_series/33.310/33310-h40.zip>.
>> 
>> OLD:
>>              (Release 17)", 3GPP TS:29.571 V17.5.0, March 2022,
>>              <https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/
>>              archive/29_series/29.571/29571-h50.zip>.
>> NEW:
>>              (Release 17)", 3GPP TS:29.571 V17.8.0, December 2022,
>>              <https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/
>>              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
>>> 
>