Hi Jon, Just checking in with you on this document’s readiness for 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. Megan Ferguson RFC Production Center > On Jan 13, 2026, at 2:07 PM, Megan Ferguson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > Just a reminder that this document awaits your approval. Please see the > links below. > > 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. > > Megan Ferguson > RFC Production Center > > >> On Jan 5, 2026, at 9:49 AM, Megan Ferguson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Jon, >> >> Happy New Year! >> >> We believe this document is only awaiting an overt approval (as we haven’t >> seen any further updates requested since your last message in October). >> >> Please confirm at your earliest convenience so we can move this document >> forward in the publication process. >> >> 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. >> >> Megan Ferguson >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Dec 15, 2025, at 4:02 PM, Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Jon, >>> >>> We still have a little time left to try to get this one published in 2025. >>> Please review the files below and let us know if any additional updates are >>> needed or if you approve the RFC for publication. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Sandy Ginoza >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>> >>>> On Dec 2, 2025, at 4:08 PM, Orie <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 >>>>>>>> <[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]
