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

[Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Chris.  We have recorded your approval of the document in its current form.

We’ll wait to hear from Jon (sorry, not Ben!) before moving forward.

The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9475

Thank you.

RFC Editor/mf

> On Dec 5, 2023, at 7:17 AM, Chris Wendt <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I approve, it looks good to me.
> 
>> On Dec 1, 2023, at 3:48 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[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
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>