Hi Jon, Please reply to this email.
Regards, OS On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 8:06 AM Madison Church <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jon, > > This is a friendly weekly reminder that we await your approval before > proceeding with publication. We have listed the updated files below for > convenience. 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/rfc9888.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9888.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9888.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9888.xml > > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9888-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9888-rfcdiff.html (comprehensive > side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9888-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 > changes only) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9888-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 > side by side) > > Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may > have. > > The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9888. > > Thank you! > Madison Church > RFC Production Center > > > On Nov 18, 2025, at 1:36 PM, Megan Ferguson < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > > > Just a friendly reminder that we await your approval of this document. > > > > Please see the thread for further information and let us know if you’d > like us to implement any further changes or proceed with the document in > its current form. > > > > Thank you. > > > > RFC Editor/mf > > > >> On Nov 10, 2025, at 10:17 AM, Megan Ferguson < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Jon, > >> > >> Just a ping that we are awaiting your review/approval of the > implementation of the updates requested prior to moving this document > forward in the publication process. > >> > >> Please see the message below for further info. > >> > >> Thank you. > >> > >> Megan Ferguson > >> RFC Production Center > >> > >>> On Oct 23, 2025, at 1:55 PM, Megan Ferguson < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Jon, > >>> > >>> Thank you for your reply. We have updated according to your > preferences. > >>> > >>> 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/rfc9888.txt > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9888.pdf > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9888.html > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9888.xml > >>> > >>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9888-diff.html (comprehensive > diff) > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9888-rfcdiff.html > (comprehensive side by side) > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9888-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 > changes only) > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9888-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 > side by side) > >>> > >>> 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/rfc9888 > >>> > >>> Thank you. > >>> > >>> Megan Ferguson > >>> RFC Production Center > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Oct 22, 2025, at 1:04 PM, Peterson, Jon <Jon.Peterson= > [email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> 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...). > >>>> > >>>> JFP: I don’t think “Framework” is necessary in the title. > >>>> > >>>> See also our change to the first sentence of the Introduction. > Perhaps: Out-of-Band Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR) Framework > for Service Providers > >>>> > >>>> JFP: The first sentence of the intro is talking about STIR in > general, not this out-of-band framework. So, it is okay as it reads in your > initial change, > >>>> > >>>> --> 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”? > >>>> > >>>> JFP: It is “information”. You can s/which/that > >>>> > >>>> b) Could the "while" be removed? This seems to be further > information, not contrasting information? > >>>> > >>>> JFP: Really the semicolon before the “while” should be a comma. This > is contrasting information: the baseline PASSporT only contains > information that is strictly redundant with the contents of a SIP request. > >>>> > >>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> JFP: I think converting the semicolon to a comma, and perhaps > s/which/that, would be sufficient to clarify, but this proposed wording is > also OK. > >>>> > >>>> --> 3) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of > the online Style Guide 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 <> 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… > >>>> > >>>> JFP: The usage of “traditional” here is OK I think. > >>>> > >>>> --> 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 the online > Style Guide: OOB-AS SPC > >>>> > >>>> JFP: OK > >>>> > >>>> --> 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 the online Style Guide for further > information/guidance. > >>>> > >>>> JFP: I think it’s OK. > >>>> > >>>> --> 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] > >>>> > >>>> JFP: I’ve reviewed these instances and I think the usage in the doc > is OK. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks! > >>>> > >>>> --> Thank you. Megan Ferguson RFC Production Center > >>> > >> > > > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
