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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Sorry for the late reply, some comments inline.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > > On Sep 8, 2023, at 4:05 PM, [e-mail] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>>