Jon,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!-- [rfced] We had the following questions/comments about the
document title:
a) 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:
Out-of-Band STIR for Service Providers
Current:
Out-of-Band Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR) for Service
Providers
b) Should "Framework" or something be added after (STIR) (once
expanded, it doesn't seem like a noun anymore...). See also our
change to the first sentence of the Introduction.
Perhaps:
Out-of-Band Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR) Framework for
Service Providers
-->
2) <!--[rfced] We had a few questions about the following sentence:
Original:
Moreover, any additional information included in a PASSporT which is
not strictly redundant with the contents of a SIP request increases
data collection concerns; while baseline [RFC8225] PASSporTs only
contain information otherwise in the SIP request.
a) Please help us clarify the subject of "which". Is it "information"
or is it "PASSporT"?
b) Could the "while" be removed? This seems to be further
information, not contrasting information?
c) Please clarify "only contain information otherwise in the SIP
request". Does this mean only redundant information?
Perhaps:
Moreover, in a PASSporT, any additional information that is not
strictly redundant with the contents of a SIP request increases data
collection concerns; baseline [RFC8225] PASSporTs only contain
information redundant with the SIP request.
-->
3) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
online Style Guide
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this
nature typically result in more precise language, which is
helpful for readers.
Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this
should still be reviewed as a best practice.
In addition, please consider whether "tradition" should be updated for
clarity. While the NIST website
<https://web.archive.org/web/20250214092458/https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1>
indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.
"Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.
Original:
..may send SIP INVITEs to a gateway in front of a traditional PSTN...
-->
4) <!-- [rfced] We had the following questions/comments about
abbreviation use throughout the document:
a) FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon first use per
Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
b) FYI - We will update to use the abbreviation only after the first
use for the following abbreviations in accordance with
https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#exp_abbrev:
OOB-AS
SPC
-->
5) <!--[rfced] Please review the use of citation tags throughout the
document: some are read as part of the sentence while others are
not syntactically relevant.
Please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#citation_usage
for further information/guidance.-->
6) <!--[rfced] We see the following similar terminology used throughout
the document. Please let us know if/how we may make these
consistent.
STIR credential vs. STIR certificate vs. STIR [RFC8816] certificate
out-of-band STIR vs. STIR out-of-band vs. STIR out-of-band framework [RFC8816]
-->
Thank you.
Megan Ferguson
RFC Production Center
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/10/21
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://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
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://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
* 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://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
* 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
* [email protected] (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).
* [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
list:
* More info:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
* The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
* 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,
[email protected] 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://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9888.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9888.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9888.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9888.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9888-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9888-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9888-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9888
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9888 (draft-ietf-stir-servprovider-oob-08)
Title : Out-of-Band STIR for Service Providers
Author(s) : J. Peterson
WG Chair(s) : Ben Campbell, Robert Sparks, Russ Housley
Area Director(s) : Andy Newton, Orie Steele
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
