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.
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
