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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

<trying different author addresses>

> On Nov 8, 2023, at 7:19 PM, Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Authors,
> 
> Just a friendly reminder that this document awaits your review/comments.
> 
> Please see our previous message for further information.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor/mf
> 
>> On Oct 24, 2023, at 1:31 PM, Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> Just a friendly reminder that this document awaits action from the parties listed at https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9475.  
>> 
>> We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> RFC Editor/mf
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 16, 2023, at 5:45 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>