Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9475 <draft-ietf-stir-messaging-08> for your review

[Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Sounds good to me.
>> 
>> - J
>> 
>> From: Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>
>> Date: Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:30 AM
>> To: Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>, Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Peterson, Jon <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, RFC Editor <[e-mail]>
>> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Please make it normative.
>> 
>> -MSK, ART AD
>> 
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 4:45 PM Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Sorry for the late reply, some comments inline.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 8, 2023, at 4:05 PM, [e-mail] 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
>>>> 
>>>>  *  [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://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, 
>>>>       [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://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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>