Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-ietf-stir-messaging-08> for your review
Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 01 December 2023 20:48 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8637AC14F5F6; Fri, 1 Dec 2023 12:48:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.115
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.115 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_DISCARD=1.8, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9IXEmMXa9sTv; Fri, 1 Dec 2023 12:48:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54492C14F5F3; Fri, 1 Dec 2023 12:48:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([108.147.185.18]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.17.2/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 3B1Kmls3067048 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 1 Dec 2023 14:48:48 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1701463729; bh=By4ta15mG6GYRkcj1tFGtWErWw6c6KfxzB8BmCN6vgk=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To; b=lQd5+YJLkJWmAvP76oYjX0L1NBF4LzgfbsbTtrHmIwpiMBUIM0otamBueJRmVMYyM vAIuIH2tBEqg3/xDx07OBIBsjV+9x5CNTOREy5lyy0H2J9KrWww/WXj1DlCJy46exq Fx9MffE1USfsSqSnoKHvL6+FAKGh0I1hGif81/RQ=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [108.147.185.18] claimed to be smtpclient.apple
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2023 14:48:12 -0600
Message-Id: <F205CE6F-203C-4478-9F0C-89F5A8E5F2E2@nostrum.com>
References: <060A4942-3CD4-413B-9FF5-2BBA4E0771B0@amsl.com>
Cc: "Peterson, Jon" <Jon.Peterson@transunion.com>, jon.peterson@team.neustar, chris-ietf@chriswendt.net, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, stir-ads@ietf.org, stir-chairs@ietf.org, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <060A4942-3CD4-413B-9FF5-2BBA4E0771B0@amsl.com>
To: Megan Ferguson <mferguson@amsl.com>, Jon Peterson <Jon.Peterson@transunion.com>, Chris Wendt <cwendt@somos.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (21B101)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/-lcSDGtFlAFY3DaRcNaQlaN-M1Y>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-ietf-stir-messaging-08> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2023 20:48:39 -0000
I assume you mean Jon and Chris. Forwarding to alternate addresses. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 1, 2023, at 2:21 PM, Megan Ferguson <mferguson@amsl.com> wrote: > > Jon and Ben, > > Just a reminder that we await your approvals of this document. Please review the document at the links below and let us know if you have any further updates/comments/questions. > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/mf > > >> On Nov 17, 2023, at 1:11 PM, Megan Ferguson <mferguson@amsl.com> wrote: >> >> >> Murray, Jon, and Ben, >> >> Thank you for your replies. We have updated to make RFC 4648 a normative reference. >> >> Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after publication. >> >> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9475.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9475.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9475.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9475.xml >> >> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9475-diff.html (comprehensive diff) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9475-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9475-lastdiff.html (last to current version only) >> >> Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may have. >> >> We will await overt approvals from each of the parties listed on the AUTH48 status page prior to moving forward to publication. >> >> The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9475 >> >> Thank you. >> >> RFC Editor/mf >> >>>> On Nov 17, 2023, at 9:57 AM, Peterson, Jon <Jon.Peterson@transunion.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Sounds good to me. >>> >>> - J >>> >>> From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> >>> Date: Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:30 AM >>> To: Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>, Megan Ferguson <mferguson@amsl.com> >>> Cc: Peterson, Jon <Jon.Peterson@transunion.com>, jon.peterson@team.neustar <jon.peterson@team.neustar>, chris-ietf@chriswendt.net <chris-ietf@chriswendt.net>, stir-ads@ietf.org <stir-ads@ietf.org>, stir-chairs@ietf.org <stir-chairs@ietf.org>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> >>> Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-ietf-stir-messaging-08> for your review >>> >>> 4648 is a PS, so I assume this change takes no additional process other than the AD approval that Murray just gave. Is that correct? Thanks! Ben. On Nov 17, 2023, at 9: 11 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@ gmail. com> wrote: Hi,Please make >>> 4648 is a PS, so I assume this change takes no additional process other than the AD approval that Murray just gave. Is that correct? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Ben. >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 17, 2023, at 9:11 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Please make it normative. >>> >>> -MSK, ART AD >>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 4:45 PM Megan Ferguson <mferguson@amsl.com> wrote: >>> Greetings, >>> >>> *AD - please review the following question and provide guidance to the authors on this point: >>> >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] We have added RFC 4648 as an Informative Reference. Please let us know if it should be Normative instead. >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> The subsequent characters in the claim value are the base64 encoded >>>>> [RFC4648] digest of a canonicalized and concatenated string or binary data >>>>> based MIME body of the message. --> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Um, I believe that’s okay as Informative, but I might ask our AD if he agrees. >>>> >>> >>> Jon, >>> >>> Thank you for your reply. We have updated accordingly. >>> >>> Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after publication. >>> >>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9475.txt >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9475.pdf >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9475.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9475.xml >>> >>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9475-diff.html (comprehensive diff) >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9475-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only) >>> >>> Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may have. >>> >>> We will await approvals from each of the parties listed on the AUTH48 status page prior to moving forward to publication. >>> >>> The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: >>> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9475 >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> RFC Editor/mf >>> >>>> On Oct 12, 2023, at 8:34 AM, Peterson, Jon <Jon.Peterson@transunion.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Sorry for the late reply, some comments inline. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sep 8, 2023, at 4:05 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Authors, >>>>> >>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >>>>> >>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been >>>>> updated as follows: >>>>> >>>>> Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 (“RFC >>>>> Style Guide”). Please review. >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> Messaging Use Cases and Extensions for STIR >>>>> >>>>> Current: >>>>> Messaging Use Cases and Extensions for Secure Telephone Identity >>>>> Revisited (STIR) >>>>> >>>>> --> >>>> >>>> OK >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] We had two questions about the first sentence in the >>>>> Abstract: >>>>> >>>>> a) Should "protocol" or "problem statement" or some other noun follow >>>>> the expansion of STIR in this text? If we cut "STIR" and just read >>>>> with the expansion, this sounds a bit odd. >>>>> >>>>> b) May we break up this sentence as suggested below for the ease of >>>>> the reader? >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR) provides a means of >>>>> attesting the identity of a telephone caller via a signed token in >>>>> order to prevent impersonation of a calling party number, which is a >>>>> key enabler for illegal robocalling. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps: >>>>> The Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR) protocol provides a >>>>> means of attesting the identity of a telephone caller via a signed >>>>> token. This prevents impersonation of a calling party number, which >>>>> is a key enabler for illegal robocalling. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think the original is better. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] FYI - we have broken up the information in the following >>>>> sentence to make it easier for the reader to digest. Please let >>>>> us know if these changes have deviated from your intended >>>>> meaning. >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> For the first case, where SIP negotiates a session where the media >>>>> will be text messages or MIME content, as, for example, with the >>>>> Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) [RFC4975], the usage of STIR >>>>> would deviate little from [RFC8224]. >>>>> >>>>> Current: >>>>> In the first case described in Section 3, SIP negotiates a >>>>> session in which the media will be text messages or MIME content, as, >>>>> for example, with the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) >>>>> [RFC4975]. This usage of STIR would deviate little from [RFC8224]. >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>> >>>> I would eliminate “described in Section 3” since this is the first sentence of Section 3.1 – we know where we are. “In the first case, Sip negotiates a session” etc. Otherwise current is fine. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 4) <!--[rfced] Can the timestamp itself order things? Or can the >>>>> timestamp be used to order things? >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> ...duplicate messages are easily detected, >>>>> and the timestamp can order messages displayed to the user inbox in a >>>>> way that precludes showing stale messages as fresh. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps: >>>>> ...duplicate messages are easily detected, and the timestamp can be >>>>> used to order messages displayed in the user inbox in a way that >>>>> precludes showing stale messages as fresh. >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Your perhaps option looks good. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] FYI - We have updated the expansion of MMS as follows to >>>>> match more common use in recent RFCs. Please let us know any >>>>> objections: >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> multimedia message system (MMS) >>>>> >>>>> Current: >>>>> Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) >>>>> --> >>>> >>>> OK >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] How may we update this text for clarity? We do not see >>>>> "profiles" in RFC 8226. (Note that we have made the change from >>>>> "profiles defines" to "profiles define" pending more >>>>> information). >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> The [RFC8226] STIR certificate profiles defines... >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps: >>>>> "Secure Telephone Identity Credentials: Certificates" [RFC8226] defines... >>>>> >>>>> Or perhaps: >>>>> The STIR certificate profiles defined in [RFC8226]... >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think “profiles” and “defines” in the original were just a redundant typo. Your “Perhaps” is correct: “[RFC8226] defines”. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] This sentence describes a lot of things being "contain"ed. >>>>> Might a rephrase benefit the reader? If so, please let us know >>>>> how we may update. >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> As the "orig" and "dest" field of PASSporTs may contain URIs >>>>> containing SIP URIs without telephone numbers, the STIR for messaging >>>>> mechanism contained in this specification is not inherently >>>>> restricted to the use of telephone numbers. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yeah that’s pretty bad. How about: >>>> >>>> As the “orig” and “dest” field of PASSporTs may contain SIP URIs without telephone numbers, the STIR for… >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 8) <!--[rfced] May we update the following to avoid awkward hyphenation? >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> This specification offers no guidance on certification authorities who >>>>> are appropriate to sign for non-telephone number "orig" values. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps: >>>>> This specification offers no guidance on certification authorities who >>>>> are appropriate to sign for "orig" values that are not for use with >>>>> telephone numbers. >>>>> >>>> >>>> How about: This specification offers no guidance on appropriate certification authorities for desigining “orig” values that do not contain telephone numbers. >>>> >>>> >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 9) <!--[rfced] Please note the following about the IANA Considerations >>>>> and IANA-related text in the document: >>>>> >>>>> a) Please note that we have changed IESG to be IETF for the Change >>>>> Controller of the "msgi" registration at >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt/jwt.xhtml__;!!N14HnBHF!-Go8giMg3oYK7EPYfukRw6EkY7aHj0rvYHbmI9FCnanwAGz_gT_tRpk8nMNJ7HikD5JH3xv-VATz_97iEEp1K0A$ . This is in accordance >>>>> with the following note we received from IANA: >>>>> >>>>> "Note: in accordance with recent practice, the change controller for >>>>> this registration has been changed from the IESG to the IETF." >>>> >>>> OK >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> b) We have cut the URL to the registry mentioned in Section 6.2 to >>>>> match Section 6.1. Please let us know any objections. >>>> >>>> OK >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> c) We have removed the quote marks as they do not appear in the >>>>> corresponding registries. >>>> >>>> OK >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] We have added RFC 4648 as an Informative Reference. Please let us know if it should be Normative instead. >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> The subsequent characters in the claim value are the base64 encoded >>>>> [RFC4648] digest of a canonicalized and concatenated string or binary data >>>>> based MIME body of the message. --> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Um, I believe that’s okay as Informative, but I might ask our AD if he agrees. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 11) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions related to terminology use >>>>> throughout the document: >>>>> >>>>> a) We note the use of the following similar terms: >>>>> >>>>> SIP Identity header >>>>> Identity header >>>>> Identity >>>>> identity >>>>> >>>>> Please review these instances and let us know if any updates are >>>>> necessary for clarity (e.g., should all "Identity header"s be called >>>>> "SIP Identity header"s). >>>>> >>>> >>>> I mean, I tend to favor being readable over strict on these matters. Scanning through the doc, I think it’s clear that referring to “Identity” in these contexts means the SIP Identity header from the remainder of the sentences in question. >>>> >>>> >>>>> b) We see both: >>>>> >>>>> "orig" field >>>>> "orig" values >>>>> >>>>> Should the latter be made "orig" field values? >>>> >>>> Where “orig” and “dest” and “iat” are referred to as “fields” (like in 4) that should more properly be “claims”. Claims have a value, so talking about the ‘“orig” value’ is fine. But we should say “claims” instead of “fields” for the few instances where PASSporT elements are referred to as “fields”: >>>> >>>> … the “dest” field of the PASSporT … >>>> >>>> … so that the “iat” field can be … >>>> >>>> … As the “orig” and “dest” field of… >>>> >>>> And also the last sentence in 1: … that specifies new fields for use in PASSporTs… >>>> >>>> Those should be “claim” or “claims.” (No changes to places where “Identity field” appears, though). >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> c) We see the following uses of "baseline": >>>>> >>>>> i) At a high level, baseline PASSporT [RFC8225] claims provide similar >>>>> value to... >>>>> >>>>> ii) Current usage of baseline [RFC8224] Identity is largely confined to >>>>> INVITE requests that initiate telephone calls. >>>>> >>>>> iii) Per baseline [RFC8224], this specifications leaves it to local policy >>>>> to determine how messages are handled after verification succeeds or >>>>> fails. >>>> >>>> “Baseline” is being used in all three of cases in its naïve sense, to mean just “as the specification is written.” I would just eliminate the word in all three cases, it isn’t adding much value. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> For i), we see the use of "baseline claims" in RFC 8225, so we would >>>>> simply suggest moving the citation tag as follows: >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps: >>>>> At a high level, baseline PASSporT claims (see [RFC8225]) provide similar >>>>> value to... >>>>> >>>>> For ii), we note that "baseline Identity" is not mentioned in RFC >>>>> 8224. Please review this text and let us know how to update. >>>>> >>>>> For iii), we see RFC 8225 referred to as "the baseline PASSporT >>>>> specification" in RFC 8224. Please review this text and let us know >>>>> how to update. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps: >>>>> Per the guidance in the baseline PASSporT specification [RFC8225], this >>>>> specification leaves it to local policy to determine how messages >>>>> are handled after verification succeeds or fails. >>>>> >>>>> d) We see both PASSporT Type and PASSporT type. We updated to use the >>>>> lowercase "type" throughout. Please let us know any objections. >>>> >>>> OK >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the >>>>> online Style Guide >>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!N14HnBHF!-Go8giMg3oYK7EPYfukRw6EkY7aHj0rvYHbmI9FCnanwAGz_gT_tRpk8nMNJ7HikD5JH3xv-VATz_97ip7soJ18$ > >>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed. >>>>> >>>>> For example, please consider whether the following should be updated: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ...authorized to use the calling party number (or, for native SIP cases,... >>>> >>>> I would delete “native”, yes. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In addition, please consider whether "tradition" should be updated for >>>>> clarity. While the NIST website >>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions*table1__;Iw!!N14HnBHF!-Go8giMg3oYK7EPYfukRw6EkY7aHj0rvYHbmI9FCnanwAGz_gT_tRpk8nMNJ7HikD5JH3xv-VATz_97iC0E6QT4$ > >>>>> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous. >>>>> "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ...value to number-based messaging as they do to traditional >>>>> telephone... >>>>> >>>>> ...treatment that differs from traditional delivery expectations of >>>>> SIP... >>>>> >>>>> ...the traditional telephone network and those based on >>>>> over-the-top... >>>>> --> >>>> >>>> I might just remove “traditional” in all three cases. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> - J >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> RFC Editor/kf/mf >>>>> >>>>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>>>> >>>>> Updated 2023/09/08 >>>>> >>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!N14HnBHF!-Go8giMg3oYK7EPYfukRw6EkY7aHj0rvYHbmI9FCnanwAGz_gT_tRpk8nMNJ7HikD5JH3xv-VATz_97i6VbbRHo$ ). >>>>> >>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/__;!!N14HnBHF!-Go8giMg3oYK7EPYfukRw6EkY7aHj0rvYHbmI9FCnanwAGz_gT_tRpk8nMNJ7HikD5JH3xv-VATz_97ivv60mCc$ ). >>>>> >>>>> * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!N14HnBHF!-Go8giMg3oYK7EPYfukRw6EkY7aHj0rvYHbmI9FCnanwAGz_gT_tRpk8nMNJ7HikD5JH3xv-VATz_97i3kdQ3dg$ >. >>>>> >>>>> * 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 >>>>> >>>>> * rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (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). >>>>> >>>>> * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list >>>>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion >>>>> list: >>>>> >>>>> * More info: >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!N14HnBHF!-Go8giMg3oYK7EPYfukRw6EkY7aHj0rvYHbmI9FCnanwAGz_gT_tRpk8nMNJ7HikD5JH3xv-VATz_97iYlnOK50$ >>>>> >>>>> * The archive itself: >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!N14HnBHF!-Go8giMg3oYK7EPYfukRw6EkY7aHj0rvYHbmI9FCnanwAGz_gT_tRpk8nMNJ7HikD5JH3xv-VATz_97i78oCEgc$ >>>>> >>>>> * 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, >>>>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9475.xml__;!!N14HnBHF!-Go8giMg3oYK7EPYfukRw6EkY7aHj0rvYHbmI9FCnanwAGz_gT_tRpk8nMNJ7HikD5JH3xv-VATz_97iEylmKUA$ >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9475.html__;!!N14HnBHF!-Go8giMg3oYK7EPYfukRw6EkY7aHj0rvYHbmI9FCnanwAGz_gT_tRpk8nMNJ7HikD5JH3xv-VATz_97iWg_ouFg$ >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9475.pdf__;!!N14HnBHF!-Go8giMg3oYK7EPYfukRw6EkY7aHj0rvYHbmI9FCnanwAGz_gT_tRpk8nMNJ7HikD5JH3xv-VATz_97iTy29TMw$ >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9475.txt__;!!N14HnBHF!-Go8giMg3oYK7EPYfukRw6EkY7aHj0rvYHbmI9FCnanwAGz_gT_tRpk8nMNJ7HikD5JH3xv-VATz_97ilLQIE8A$ >>>>> >>>>> Diff file of the text: >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9475-diff.html__;!!N14HnBHF!-Go8giMg3oYK7EPYfukRw6EkY7aHj0rvYHbmI9FCnanwAGz_gT_tRpk8nMNJ7HikD5JH3xv-VATz_97it_L51nM$ >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9475-rfcdiff.html__;!!N14HnBHF!-Go8giMg3oYK7EPYfukRw6EkY7aHj0rvYHbmI9FCnanwAGz_gT_tRpk8nMNJ7HikD5JH3xv-VATz_97i-zUhmzc$ (side by side) >>>>> >>>>> Diff of the XML: >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9475-xmldiff1.html__;!!N14HnBHF!-Go8giMg3oYK7EPYfukRw6EkY7aHj0rvYHbmI9FCnanwAGz_gT_tRpk8nMNJ7HikD5JH3xv-VATz_97i9m1ultE$ >>>>> >>>>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own >>>>> diff files of the XML. >>>>> >>>>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input: >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9475.original.v2v3.xml__;!!N14HnBHF!-Go8giMg3oYK7EPYfukRw6EkY7aHj0rvYHbmI9FCnanwAGz_gT_tRpk8nMNJ7HikD5JH3xv-VATz_97iZpfo5Z8$ >>>>> >>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates >>>>> only: >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9475.form.xml__;!!N14HnBHF!-Go8giMg3oYK7EPYfukRw6EkY7aHj0rvYHbmI9FCnanwAGz_gT_tRpk8nMNJ7HikD5JH3xv-VATz_97igEa1vTg$ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Tracking progress >>>>> ----------------- >>>>> >>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9475__;!!N14HnBHF!-Go8giMg3oYK7EPYfukRw6EkY7aHj0rvYHbmI9FCnanwAGz_gT_tRpk8nMNJ7HikD5JH3xv-VATz_97izp6fZsY$ >>>>> >>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>>>> >>>>> RFC Editor >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> RFC9475 (draft-ietf-stir-messaging-08) >>>>> >>>>> Title : Messaging Use Cases and Extensions for STIR >>>>> Author(s) : J. Peterson, C. Wendt >>>>> WG Chair(s) : Ben Campbell, Robert Sparks, Russ Housley >>>>> Area Director(s) : Murray Kucherawy, Francesca Palombini >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-ietf-stir-… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-ietf-s… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-ietf-s… Megan Ferguson
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-ietf-s… Megan Ferguson
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-ietf-s… Megan Ferguson
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-ietf-s… Peterson, Jon
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-i… Megan Ferguson
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-i… Megan Ferguson
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-i… Megan Ferguson
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-i… Ben Campbell
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-i… Megan Ferguson
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-i… Peterson, Jon
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-i… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-i… Ben Campbell
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-i… Peterson, Jon
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-ietf-s… Megan Ferguson
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-ietf-s… Megan Ferguson
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-ietf-s… Ben Campbell
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-ietf-s… Chris Wendt
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-ietf-s… Megan Ferguson
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-ietf-s… Peterson, Jon
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-ietf-s… Megan Ferguson