Hi Chris, Thank you for your review. We have updated the document per your reply.
For this item, it is unclear to us whether the RCD information or the Call-Info header must not be modified. >> 4) <!-- [rfced] For readability, please consider the possible update below. >> Also, is the information not to be "considered" modifiable, or should it be >> not modifiable? >> >> Original: >> The insertion of the RCD Call-Info header field >> should be considered a trusted action based on trusted information, >> and the information MUST NOT be considered modifiable representing >> the best practice of determining the final representation of the >> caller RCD to the user. >> >> Perhaps: >> The best way to determine the final representation of the >> caller RCD to the user is to consider the insertion of the >> RCD Call-Info header field a trusted action based on trusted information, >> whereby the information MUST NOT be considered modifiable. >> --> > > I agree that sentence is awkwardly written, but i would modify it as follows: > Representing the trusted and verified caller RCD information to the user by > inserting it into the RCD Call-Info header field MUST NOT be modified or > altered as this should be a trusted action that accurately represents the > verified information. Is one of the following accurate? Perhaps A: Representing the trusted and verified caller RCD information to the user is accomplished by inserting it into the RCD Call-Info header field. This information MUST NOT be modified or altered because it should be a trusted action that accurately represents the verified information. Perhaps B: The trusted and verified caller RCD information inserted in the RCD Call-Info header field MUST NOT be modified or altered. The user should be able to trust that the RCD information accurately represents the verified information. Perhaps C: The insertion of the RCD Call-Info header field should be considered a trusted action based on trusted information. That information MUST NOT be modifiable because the insertion represents the best practice of determining the final representation of the caller RCD to the user. The current files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9796.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9796.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9796.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9796.html AUTH48 diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9796-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9796-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Comprehensive diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9796-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9796-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Thank you, RFC Editor/sg > On Jun 5, 2025, at 3:58 PM, Chris Wendt <ch...@appliedbits.com> wrote: > > > Thank you for the suggested improvements, my specific responses inline: > >> On May 23, 2025, at 2:51 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >> >> Authors, >> >> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) >> the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >> >> 1) <!-- [rfced] Is "For this document" needed? >> >> Original: >> For this document >> and depending on the policies of the communications system, a calling >> party could be either the end user device (e.g., a SIP user agent >> (UA)) or a network service as part of a telephone service provider. >> >> Perhaps: >> Depending on the policies of the communications system, a calling >> party could be either the end user device (e.g., a SIP user agent >> (UA)) or a network service as part of a telephone service provider. >> >> Alternatively, perhaps: >> As defined in this document, depending on the policies of the >> communications system, a calling party could be either the end >> user device (e.g., a SIP user agent (UA)) or a network service >> as part of a telephone service provider. >> --> > > The Perhaps clause is good > >> >> >> 2) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon first >> use >> per the RFC Style Guide (see >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7322.html#section-3.6). Please review each >> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. >> >> UNI -> User-Network Interface (UNI) >> STIR -> Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR) >> --> > > Yes, they are correct > >> >> >> 3) <!-- [rfced] Are logo and icons an example of calling name info? >> >> Original: >> The STIR RCD >> specification [I-D.ietf-stir-passport-rcd] defines calling name, a >> logo or icon associated with the caller, and a call reason string. >> >> Perhaps: >> The STIR RCD >> specification [RFC9795] defines calling name (e.g., a logo or icon >> associated with the caller) and a call reason string. >> --> > > No, but you are correct, it should be clearer: > Recommendation is the following: > The STIR RCD specification [RFC9795] defines the following primary rich call > data elements: a calling name, a logo or icon associated with the caller, and > a call reason string. > >> >> >> 4) <!-- [rfced] For readability, please consider the possible update below. >> Also, is the information not to be "considered" modifiable, or should it be >> not modifiable? >> >> Original: >> The insertion of the RCD Call-Info header field >> should be considered a trusted action based on trusted information, >> and the information MUST NOT be considered modifiable representing >> the best practice of determining the final representation of the >> caller RCD to the user. >> >> Perhaps: >> The best way to determine the final representation of the >> caller RCD to the user is to consider the insertion of the >> RCD Call-Info header field a trusted action based on trusted information, >> whereby the information MUST NOT be considered modifiable. >> --> > > I agree that sentence is awkwardly written, but i would modify it as follows: > Representing the trusted and verified caller RCD information to the user by > inserting it into the RCD Call-Info header field MUST NOT be modified or > altered as this should be a trusted action that accurately represents the > verified information. > >> >> >> 5) <!-- [rfced] It's unclear which section this sentence is referring to, as >> this document does not have a Section 8.2. Perhaps Section 10.2 is >> intended? >> >> Current: >> Section 8.2 provides high-level guidance on image formatting and >> related information. >> --> > > Sorry it should be: Section 8.2 of [RFC9795] provides high-level … > >> >> >> 6) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence. >> >> a) Are "fn", "photo", and "logo" fields AND properties, or should the text >> refer to the properties (e.g., 'If "fn", "photo", or "logo" are used...')? >> >> b) What MUST match? >> >> c) Should single quotes be used as follows, as it appears token names >> usually appear in single quote? >> >> purpose token -> 'purpose' token >> >> Original: >> The fields like "fn", "photo", or "logo" if used with the use of >> "icon" or calling name in From or P-Asserted-ID header field or >> purpose token, as described in the previous section, MUST match if >> present to allow the called party to clearly determine the intended >> calling name or icon. >> --> >> > > Yes you are correct ‘purpose’ should be single quoted. > So suggested text to fix other questions and expand the explanation a bit: > > jCard has multiple fields that may convey similar information, for example, > "fn", “n”, or “nickname” are strings that represent names in different ways, > or "photo" or "logo" represent a picture. Users of this specification should > make sure there is consistency for the calling name string corresponding to > the single name in the SIP From or P-Asserted-ID header field or a “logo” or > “photo” corresponds to the RCD “icon” as described in the previous section. > As described in [RFC8224] and [RFC9795] verification procedures, the values > represented in the RCD MUST match the corresponding information in the SIP > message to enable proper verification of calling name or icon consistently. > >> >> 7) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble understanding how "or any future >> parameters that may be defined" relates to the text. "only" seems to limit >> the parameters that may be used, but "any future parameters" seems open >> ended (i.e., any parameter). Please review and consider whether the text >> can be clarified. >> >> Original: >> In the case that there is only a 'call-reason' or 'verified' >> parameter or any future parameters that may be defined and no need >> for a purpose parameter with no associated URI the null data URI, >> "data:" is used as the URI. >> --> > > Yes, replace with this: > For ‘call-reason’ or ‘verified’ parameters defined in this document that do > not require a an associated URI, or future parameters not requiring an > associated URI, the Call-Info header field URI should be set to the null data > URI, “data:”. > >> >> >> 8) <!--[rfced] May this be rephrased to clarify "of whom"? Seemingly this >> is about the trusted relationship with the party from whom they receive >> the SIP request. >> >> Original: >> As a general >> principle of Call-Info header field information, the recipients >> ability to trust the 'verified' parameter is based on the trusted >> relationship of whom they are receiving the SIP request. >> >> Perhaps: >> As a general >> principle of Call-Info header field information, the recipients' >> ability to trust the 'verified' parameter is based on the trusted >> relationship with the party from whom they are receiving the SIP request. >> --> > > Yes this is appropriate > >> >> >> 9) <!-- [rfced] 'icon' vs. "icon" >> This term appears in single quotes (2 instances) and double quotes (6 >> instances); >> should it be consistent? >> >> Original: >> Example where the parameter verified="true" is used to represent that >> >> a verification procedure has been performed within a trust domain to >> >> indicate the 'icon' URL has been successfully verified: >> --> > > Yes for ‘purpose’ parameter tokens, it should be double quotes, “icon” since > that is the string value associated with purpose=. I actually found that > there is an inconsistency with “jcard” also so should probably make that > consistent by using “jcard” with double quotes also. > >> >> >> 10) <!-- [rfced] This sentence is difficult to parse. Please clarify. >> >> Original: >> This >> document defines the convention that when a Call-Info header field >> with a null data URI, "data:", a default purpose of "jcard" and >> adding a verified="true" indicates that the display-name information >> in either the From and/or P-Asserted-ID header field has been >> verified via RCD verification procedures. >> >> Perhaps: >> This >> document defines that the display-name information >> in either the From and/or P-Asserted-ID header field has >> been verified via RCD verification procedures when the following are >> present: >> >> * a Call-Info header field with a null data URI, "data:", >> * a default purpose of "jcard", and >> * verified="true". >> --> > > Yes, that is much clearer, i think you could say it this way: > This document defines that the display-name information in either the From > and/or P-Asserted-ID header field has been verified via RCD PASSporT > verification procedures when the following is present: a ‘purpose’ parameter > tokens of “jcard”, a Call-Info header field with a null data URI “data:”, and > a verified parameter equal to “true”. > >> >> >> 11) <!-- [rfced] This sentence starts with "this hash value" and switches to >> "the integrity value", but the connection between these is unclear. Please >> review. >> >> Original: >> Typically, this hash value, assuming the URI and the resource pointed >> to the URI don't change between the STIR RCD PASSporT and the Call- >> Info URI value, the integrity value can be directly used as the same >> corresponding string in both the 'rcdi' claim and the 'integrity' >> parameter string value. >> >> Perhaps: >> Assuming the URI and the resource pointing >> to the URI don't change between the STIR RCD PASSporT and the Call- >> Info URI value, the integrity value can typically be used as the same >> corresponding string in both the "rcdi" claim and the 'integrity' >> parameter. >> --> > > Yes the new version is clearer. > >> >> >> 12) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence. Please >> clarify. >> >> Original: >> Note: the inclusion of both the 'verified' and 'integrity' when an >> 'rcdi' claim is included and the identity header field and included >> PASSporT is verified successfully is the suggested outcome. >> >> Perhaps: >> Note: The ideal outcome is to include the 'verified' and >> 'integrity' parameters in an "rcdi" claim and the identity >> header field, and to have the PASSporT verified successfully. >> --> > > Yes, not clear, suggest the following: > Note: When the ‘rcdi’ claim is part of the successfully verified RCD > PASSporT, the Call-Info Header Field should include both the ‘verified’ and > ‘integrity’ parameters. > >> >> >> 13) <!-- [rfced] We are unsure what "is a general anticipated process" >> means. Perhaps the text should refer to an "expected process" or an >> "accepted process"? Also, is the process a "general process" or is the >> process "generally anticipated"? >> >> Original: >> Because the 'rcd' Call-Info header field is inserted as part of the >> receiving part of the transition from NNI to UNI, the information populated >> in a received stir ‘rcd’ PASSporT that is verified is a general anticipated >> process for translating information into the 'rcd' Call-Info header field to >> transport the rich call data into the UNI toward the end user device. >> --> > > Yes, probably not a great way to put it, the following is an appropriate > replacement: > > Since the ‘rcd’ Call-Info header field is verified during the transition from > the Network-to-Network Interface (NNI) to the User-to-Network Interface > (UNI), a common approach is to extract and translate the verified information > from a received STIR ‘rcd’ PASSporT into this header field. This allows the > rich call data to be delivered to the end user device through the UNI. > >> >> >> 14) <!-- [rfced] Should the text refer to the "jcard" and "icon" parameters >> here (i.e., lowercase and doublequotes)? >> >> Original: >> The following example provides both the STIR RCD PASSporT and the >> corresponding set of Call-Info header fields shows the use of >> multiple 'purpose' parameters to indicate a jCard and an icon and >> also a 'call-reason' parameter: >> --> > > Yes that would be appropriate so, i would suggest: > … multiple Call-Info 'purpose' tokens to indicate “jcard” and “icon” and also > a 'call-reason' Call-Info parameter: >> >> >> 15) <!-- [rfced] The last sentence below is dense and hard to follow. >> Please review. >> >> Original (the sentence prior is provided for context): >> When one or more URIs are used in a jCard, it is important to note >> that any URI-referenced data, with the exception of the top-level >> usage of "jcl" as a URI to the jCard itself MUST NOT contain any URI >> references. In other words, the jCard can have URI references as >> defined in the jCard specification and this document, but the content >> referenced by those URIs MUST NOT have any URIs, and therefore MUST >> be enforced by the client to not follow those URI references or not >> render that content to the user if any URI are present in that >> specific URI linked content. >> >> Perhaps: >> In other words, the jCard can have URI references as >> defined in the jCard specification and this document, but the content >> referenced by those URIs MUST NOT have any URIs; therefore, the client MUST >> ensure that those URI references are not followed, and any URIs that are >> present in that specific URI-linked content are not rendered. >> --> > > Yes, that works. > >> >> >> 16) <!-- [rfced] It appears as though tokens appear in double quotes. >> Should the section title be updated to reflect "icon"? >> >> Original: >> 10.2. Usage of Multimedia Data in jCard or with Icon >> >> Perhaps: >> 10.2. Usage of Multimedia Data in jCard or with the "icon" Token >> --> > > Yes, or how about “Usage of Multimedia Data in jCard or with the “icon” > Call-Info ‘purpose’ token” > >> >> >> 17) <!-- [rfced] Is it accurate to refer to the 'potential instances of the >> "tel" property', as opposed to 'instances of the "tel" property'? >> >> Original: >> It is important to note that any of the potential instances of the >> "tel" property should not be considered part of the authentication or >> verification part of STIR [RFC8224] or required to match the "orig" >> claim in the PASSporT [RFC8225]. >> >> Similarly, is "has the intent" correct in the following (instead of >> "provides" and "specifies")? >> >> Original: >> The "title" property has the intent of providing the position or job >> of the object the jCard represents. Reference [RFC6350], >> Section 6.6.1. >> >> The "role" property has the intent of providing the position or job >> of the object the jCard represents. Reference [RFC6350], >> Section 6.6.2. >> >> The "logo" property has the intent of specifying a graphic image of a >> logo associated with the object the jCard represents. Reference >> [RFC6350], Section 6.6.3. >> >> The "org" property has the intent of specifying the organizational >> name and units of the object the jCard represents. Reference >> [RFC6350], Section 6.6.4. >> >> The "version" property MUST be included and is intended to specify >> the version of the vCard specification used to format this vCard. >> --> > > Agree, the word “potential” can be removed. > > Also agree, “provides” or “specifies” can replace “has the intent of > providing” and “has the intent of specifying” > >> >> >> 18) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, we suggest the update below. Please review >> and let us know if this acceptable. >> >> Original: >> The end client receiving a jCard with a >> "url" property MUST only display the URL and not automatically follow >> the URL or provide automatic preview of the URL, and generally >> provide good practices in making it clear to the user it is their >> choice to follow the URL in a browser context consistent with all of >> the common browser security and privacy practices available on most >> consumer OS environments. >> >> Perhaps: >> The end client receiving a jCard with a >> "url" property MUST only display the URL and not automatically follow >> the URL or provide an automatic preview of the URL. In addition, it MUST >> generally >> adhere to good practice to make it clear to the user that it is their >> choice whether to follow the URL in a browser context consistent with all >> of >> the common browser security and privacy practices available on most >> consumer OS environments. >> --> > > Yes, clearer. > >> >> >> 19) <!-- [rfced] "since its existence" is awkward; may we update the text as >> follows? >> >> Current: >> The SIP framework, defined in [RFC3261] and the various extensions to >> SIP, which includes STIR [RFC8224] and rich call data [RFC9795], since >> its existence has provided mechanisms to assert information about the >> person or entity behind the call. >> >> Perhaps: >> The SIP framework, defined in [RFC3261] and the various extensions to >> SIP, which includes STIR [RFC8224] and rich call data [RFC9795], >> has always provided mechanisms to assert information about the >> person or entity behind the call. >> --> > > Yes, better. > >> >> >> 20) <!-- [rfced] What does "weigh this responsibility" refer to? Is it >> the core security consideration, the risk of impersonation, or both? >> >> Original (earlier sentences included for context): >> It can also >> enable the ability for actors to impersonate a calling party they are >> not authorized to represent. The core security consideration that >> either explicitly or implicitly have been acknowledged with any of >> the SIP and STIR specifications is that there is a management and >> policy layer that validates the participants in the ecosystem and >> their use of a SIP network with telephone number identifiers and >> identity related information. The use of this specification should >> weigh this responsibility and make the appropriate considerations to >> validate the proper participation and use of these tools follow these >> larger security, impersonation prevention, and privacy >> considerations. >> >> Perhaps: >> Users should assess this [risk / core consideration / both the risk >> and core consideration] and make the appropriate adjustments to >> validate proper participation while following these >> larger security, impersonation prevention, and privacy >> considerations. >> --> > > I would suggest: > Users should assess this risk and make the appropriate adjustments to > validate proper participation while … > >> >> >> 21) <!--[rfced] May this be rephrased for readability? If so, who should >> do the considering? >> >> Original: >> A network specific >> set of policies or best practices for the use and hosting of media >> >> content that is agreed to contain validated media resources that have >> >> been evaluated to not pose a security threat to the participants or >> >> the devices supported in the ecosystem should be considered. >> >> Perhaps: >> Network administrators should consider a network-specific >> set of policies or best practices for the use and hosting of media >> >> content that is agreed to contain validated media resources that have >> >> been evaluated to not pose a security threat to the participants or >> >> the devices supported in the ecosystem. >> --> > > You can replace as suggested, “network administrators” is appropriate for who > is doing the considering. > >> >> >> 22) <!-- [rfced] Regarding [W3C-SRI], the original URL >> for this reference directed the reader to a W3C First Public Working Draft >> with a date of 22 April 2025. However, the original date provided for >> this reference was 23 June 2016, which matches that of the W3C >> Recommendation titled "Subresource Integrity" >> (https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/REC-SRI-20160623/). We have updated this >> reference to that. >> >> However, please let us know if you intended to point to >> the First Public Working Draft >> (https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/WD-sri-2-20250422/) >> or otherwise. >> >> Original: >> [W3C-SRI] W3C, "Subresource Integrity", 23 July 2016, >> <https://www.w3.org/TR/SRI/>. >> >> Current: >> [W3C-SRI] Akhawe, D., Ed., Braun, F., Ed., Marier, F., Ed., and J. >> Weinberger, Ed., "Subresource Integrity", W3C >> Recommendation, 23 June 2016, >> <https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/REC-SRI-20160623/>. >> --> > > You can use the reference as listed above to the 2016 version. > > >> >> >> 23) <!-- [rfced] Regarding [ITUJPEG]: This reference uses the date for the >> ISO/IEC >> Standard ISO/IEC 10918-5 (May 2013), but points to the ITU-T >> Recommendation which was published in May 2011 >> (https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-T.871-201105-I/en). We have updated this >> reference to use the date for the ITU-T Recommendation and added a URL >> pointing to that specification. Please let us know if you have any >> concerns. >> --> > > No concern > >> >> >> 24) <!-- [rfced] We have added a URL to the [ISOPNG] reference. Please let >> us know if you have any concerns. >> >> Current: >> [ISOPNG] ISO/IEC, "Information technology - Computer graphics and >> image processing - Portable Network Graphics (PNG), >> Functional specification", ISO/IEC 15948:2004, March 2004, >> <https://www.iso.org/standard/29581.html>. >> --> > > No concern > >> >> >> 25) <!-- [rfced] Note that we updated claim names to use double quotes to >> match the use in RFC-to-be 9575 <draft-ietf-stir-passport-rcd>. Please let >> us know if any updates are required. >> >> Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used >> inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they >> may be made consistent. >> >> rich call data vs. Rich Call Data >> >> Also, would you like instances of "Rich Call Data" to be replaced with "RCD" >> throughout, or is it intentionally expanded in the instances that remain? >> --> > > Use of RCD throughout is probably the most appropriate. > >> >> >> 26) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document >> should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for >> content that is semantically less important or tangential to the >> content that surrounds it" >> (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). >> --> > > That would be fine, thanks for the reference wasn’t aware of that. > >> >> >> 27) <!-- [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. >> --> > > I reviewed and did not identify any additional needed changes. > >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> RFC Editor/sg/ar >> >> On May 23, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >> >> *****IMPORTANT***** >> >> Updated 2025/05/23 >> >> 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 >> >> * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (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). >> >> * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, 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, >> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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/rfc9796.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9796.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9796.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9796.txt >> >> Diff file of the text: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9796-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9796-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Diff of the XML: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9796-xmldiff1.html >> >> >> Tracking progress >> ----------------- >> >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9796 >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions. >> >> Thank you for your cooperation, >> >> RFC Editor >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC9796 (draft-ietf-sipcore-callinfo-rcd-19) >> >> Title : SIP Call-Info Parameters for Rich Call Data >> Author(s) : C. Wendt, J. Peterson >> WG Chair(s) : Brian Rosen, Jean Mahoney >> Area Director(s) : Andy Newton, Orie Steele >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
