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]
