ITU-T A.5 reference justification

Home : ITU-T Home : ITU-T Work Programme : Q.MUD_IOT

ITU-T A.5 justification information for referenced document IETF RFC 8520 (2019) in draft Q.MUD_IOT

Clear description of the referenced document:

Name:	IETF RFC 8520 (2019)
Title:	Manufacturer Usage Description Specification

Status of approval:

This document is an approved IETF RFC.

Justification for the specific reference:

RFC 8520 defines the Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) architecture, including MUD URLs, MUD file semantics, and device-intent-based network policy mechanisms required by this Recommendation.

Current information, if any, about IPR issues:

Information on IPR issues regarding RFCs is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/. Specifically: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?rfc=8520

Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:

RFC 8520 is a mature Standards Track RFC widely used in IoT security architectures and supported by multiple independent implementations.

The degree of stability or maturity of the document:

Stable Standards Track RFC

Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:

Closely related to RFC 8521 (MUD YANG Data Model)

Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:

[IEEE8021AB] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks-- Station and Media Access Control Connectivity Discovery", IEEE 802.1AB./
[RFC1123] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, DOI 10.17487/RFC1123, October 1989, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1123/
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119/
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, DOI 10.17487/RFC2131, March 1997, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2131/
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818/
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November 2003, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629/
[RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H. Levkowetz, Ed., "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3748, DOI 10.17487/RFC3748, June 2004, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3748/
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986/
[RFC3987] Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, DOI 10.17487/RFC3987, January 2005, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3987/
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234/
[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280/
[RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70, RFC 5652, DOI 10.17487/RFC5652, September 2009, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5652/
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905/
[RFC5912] Hoffman, P. and J. Schaad, "New ASN.1 Modules for the Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX)", RFC 5912, DOI 10.17487/RFC5912, June 2010, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5912/
[RFC6268] Schaad, J. and S. Turner, "Additional New ASN.1 Modules for the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) and the Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX)", RFC 6268, DOI 10.17487/RFC6268, July 2011, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6268/
[RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S. Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165, RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335/
[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991/
[RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January 2014, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120/
[RFC7227] Hankins, D., Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Jiang, S., and S. Krishnan, "Guidelines for Creating New DHCPv6 Options", BCP 187, RFC 7227, DOI 10.17487/RFC7227, May 2014, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7227/
[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230/
[RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231/
[RFC7610] Gont, F., Liu, W., and G. Van de Velde, "DHCPv6-Shield: Protecting against Rogue DHCPv6 Servers", BCP 199, RFC 7610, DOI 10.17487/RFC7610, August 2015, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7610/
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950/
[RFC7951] Lhotka, L., "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG", RFC 7951, DOI 10.17487/RFC7951, August 2016, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7951/
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174/
[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259/
[RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams", BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340/
[RFC8348] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., Dong, J., and D. Romascanu, "A YANG Data Model for Hardware Management", RFC 8348, DOI 10.17487/RFC8348, March 2018, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8348/
[RFC8415] Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A., Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 8415, DOI 10.17487/RFC8415, November 2018, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8415/
[RFC8519] Jethanandani, M., Agarwal, S., Huang, L., and D. Blair, "YANG Data Model for Network Access Control Lists (ACLs)", RFC 8519, DOI 10.17487/RFC8519, March 2019, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8519/

Qualification of ISOC/IETF:

9.1-9.6     Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7     The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8     Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.

10.

Other (for any supplementary information):

None

Note: This form is based on Recommendation ITU-T A.5

Connecting the world and beyond

ITU-T work programme