Out-of-Band STIR for Service Providers
draft-ietf-stir-servprovider-oob-08

[Ballot comment]
Hi Jon,

Thank you for the effort put into this specification.

Thanks Gyan Mishra for the OSPDIR review.

Given the target PS, I hesitated to ballot a DISCUSS as the description smells more architectural than a (interface) specification. There are several options that are listed in some sections (e.g., DNS for discovery), without providing concrete details about how this will be implemented. Also, there is no discussion on the impact of the proposed solution on the CPS scalability and also session placement performance.

Please find below some comments, fwiw.

# Abstract

OLD:
  means of carrying its Persona Assertion Tokens (PASSporTs) either in-
  band, within the headers of a Session Initiation Protocl (SIP)

NEW:
  means of carrying its Personal Assertion Tokens (PASSporTs) either in-
  band, within the headers of a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

# On Classes

CURRENT:
  Environments that might support this flavor of STIR out-of-band
  include carriers, large enterprises, call centers, or any Internet
  service that aggregates on behalf of a large number of telephone
  endpoints.  That last case may include certain classes of gateway or
  transit providers.

Is the use of “classes” here similar to the use of class (1,2,3,4,5) in old PSTN? Or is this a generic term?

Also, can we provide examples of “certain” we refer to here?

# Deployment assumptions

## vs. RFC8816

It is not straightforward to see to what extent the assumptions in Section 3 are distinct/new vs. the base assumptions in RFC8816. If any refresh is made since 8816, then call these explicitly.

Maybe this part requires an HTTP interface, while 8816 only assume “HTTPS Interface to the CPS” as an example?

CURRENT:
  The applicability of this architecture is, therefore, to
  those cases where, for whatever reason, SIP requests cannot reliably
  convey PASSporTs end-to-end, but an HTTP transaction can reliably be
  sent to the CPS from an out-of-band authentication service (OOB-AS).

## CPS is a logical entity, anyway

CURRENT:
  Moreover, a particular CPS can be a
  logically distributed entity compromised of several geographically
  distant entities that flood PASSporTs among themselves to support an
  anycast-like service.

Unless I’m mistaken, we don’t mandate any internal CPS structure. I don’t thus parse what we meant by the “geographically distant entities” in this text.

## Internet connectivity

CURRENT:
  The process of locating a destination CPS and submitting a PASSporT
  naturally requires Internet connectivity to the CPS. 

Maybe I misread this text, but couldn’t the OOB arch be deployed in the presence of federations with private interconnection?

I see that you have this right in Section 4:

CURRENT:
  These CPS
  URIs SHOULD be publicly reachable, as service providers cannot
  usually anticipate all of the potential callers that might want to
  connect with them, but in more constrained environments, they MAY be
  only reachable over a closed network.

# CPS Advertisement/Discovery: many options with no concrete realization details

This section includes many statements/options, without providing concrete details about how to put them into effect. For example, how DNS looking in this text have to be done?

CURRENT:
  CPS advertisements could be made available through existing or new
  databases, potentially aggregated across multiple service providers
  and distributed to call originators as necessary.  They could be
  discovered during the call routing process, including through a DNS
  lookup.  They could be shared through a distributed database among
  the participants in a multilateral peering arrangement.

Given the target PS track, I was expecting more description of the expected behavior:

# Freshness interval

CURRENT:
  event for no longer than the freshness interval of the PASSporT
  itself (a maximum of sixty seconds).

Is this under control of service providers? Can this be negotiated when putting CPS interface in place?

# Impact on session established delay and information gleaning

CURRENT:
  Note that a multi-provider CPS will need to inspect the "dest"
  element of a PASSporT to determine which OOB-VS should receive the
  PASSporT.

Do we have an idea about the impact of such inspection on the session establishment delay? Also, is there any information that can b “gleaned” from sch inspection that may be misused? Can that be controlled? What are the scalability impact on CPS?

May be provide pointers to where these matters are discussed would be sufficient.

# RFC 3986 is listed as normative but not cited in the document. Please fix that.

Cheers,
Med

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this write-up. I learned new interesting things about CPS and STIR. I do not have enough expertise regarding the technology area to judge if the technical parts are correct, but the flow and storyline reads well.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to both Barry Leiba and Ned Smith for secdir reviews.

Section 1, paragraph 2, sentence 1:  Pedantic, perhaps, but should 'complex security measures' be 'complex security and privacy measures'?  (see my comment on Privacy Considerations)

Privacy Considerations:  I was slightly surprised that this section didn't exist in this draft.  I do see that RFC 8816 has an extensive privacy considerations section.  It might be an interesting way to draw out how the differences described in Section 1, paragraph 2 affect privacy in addition to security.

Normative Ref:  Since RFC9110 was added, it appears that RFC3986 is no longer referenced, and could possibly be removed.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this I-D, I did not see any transport-related concerns, and have only comments:

There is a typo in the abstract: Session Initiation Protocl (SIP). Please correct “Protocol”.

I suggest it would be helpful to define STIR as “The Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR)” also at the start of the introduction.

Maybe: /requires security measures which are intended/requires security measures that are intended/

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-stir-servprovider-oob-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-08-12):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ben@nostrum.com, draft-ietf-stir-servprovider-oob@ietf.org, orie@transmute.industries, stir-chairs@ietf.org, stir@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Out-of-Band STIR for Service Providers) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Secure Telephone Identity Revisited
WG (stir) to consider the following document: - 'Out-of-Band STIR for Service
Providers'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-08-12. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR) framework defines
  means of carrying its Persona Assertion Tokens (PASSporTs) either in-
  band, within the headers of a Session Initiation Protocl (SIP)
  request, or out-of-band, through a service that stores PASSporTs for
  retrieval by relying parties.  This specification defines a way that
  the out-of-band conveyance of PASSporTs can be used to support large
  service providers, for cases in which in-band STIR conveyance is not
  universally available.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-servprovider-oob/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc8816: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR) Out-of-Band Architecture and Use Cases (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))

Apologies for the confusion at the IETF 120 mic line.
I had minor comments on this document, which I had failed to make available to the working group.
Authors have addressed my comments, and the remaining discussion regarding the downref was addressed at the mic line by Jon and Robert, with comments from the chairs.

I repeat the comment on the downref from the shepheard writeup for the record here:

    There is a normative reference to an informational RFC: RFC 8816. This is
    appropriate because this draft describes a standard that realizes parts
    of the architecture defined in RFC 8816. That RFC is necessary reading
    to fully understand this draft. In particular, there are security
    considerations described in that RFC that implementors of this draft
    should understand. This downref should be called out in the IETF
    last call announcement.

I've reviewed IETF Last Call, and am suggesting revisions I would like to see before sending the document to the IESG.

As such, I am setting the substate to "Revised I-D Needed": 

Please address the directorate reviews, with an email to the list or a revision:

- https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-stir-servprovider-oob-05-genart-lc-halpern-2024-03-28/
- https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-stir-servprovider-oob-05-artart-lc-fossati-2024-03-22/

See comments below:

Abstract:

SIP (expand on first use)

Section 1. Introduction

PSTN (expand on first use)

Section 4. Advertising a CPS

"""
CPS URIs MUST
   be HTTPS URIs.
"""

Perhaps a citation to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986
Not sure if this matters for your use case, but it is a common i18n / URI issue: https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#idna

Section 5. Submitting a PASSporT

"""
and as such the information that appears
   in the PASSporT is redundant with call signaling that the terminating
   party will receive anyway.
"""

It would be nice to see a comment about not including additional information echoed in the security considerations section, or to enumerate all the "redundant" information, so that it is clearer.


"""
The OOB-AS
   SHOULD authenticate itself to the CPS via mutual TLS using its STIR
   credential [RFC8226], the same one it would use to sign calls; this
   helps mitigate the risk of flooding that more open OOB
   implementations may face.
"""

Is a reference to  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9525/ useful here? Is there an alternative reference for mutual TLS?


"""
An OOB-AS will use a REST
   interface to submit PASSporTs to the CPS as described in [RFC8816]
   Section 9.
"""

This is almost a downref... if not normative, why not "might use"... "will use" implies "MUST"?

(same comment applies to section 6).

Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Joel Halpern. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-stir-servprovider-oob-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-03-31):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ben@nostrum.com, draft-ietf-stir-servprovider-oob@ietf.org, stir-chairs@ietf.org, stir@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Out-of-Band STIR for Service Providers) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Secure Telephone Identity Revisited
WG (stir) to consider the following document: - 'Out-of-Band STIR for Service
Providers'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-03-31. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR) framework defines
  means of carrying its Persona Assertion Tokens (PASSporTs) either in-
  band, within the headers of a SIP request, or out-of-band, through a
  service that stores PASSporTs for retrieval by relying parties.  This
  specification defines a way that the out-of-band conveyance of
  PASSporTs can be used to support large service providers, for cases
  in which in-band STIR conveyance is not universally available.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-servprovider-oob/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc8816: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR) Out-of-Band Architecture and Use Cases (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
 
  The consensus was mainly among a small group of individuals, but that is
  mostly standard operating procedure for the STIR working groups. Active
  participants comprise a small number of industry experts.
 
  Note: The primary consumers of the technologies collectively known as
  STIR are telecom SDOs that create profiles specific to their
  constituencies, for example, the ATIS/SIP Forum IP-NNI task force creates
  profiles of STIR as part of the SHAKEN framework for US telephone network
  operators.
 
 
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
 
  There have been concerns raised (mostly in venues other than STIR) about the
  potential for the substitution attack described in RFC 8816 section 7.4 could
  be a problem. There have been additional concerns raised about privacy
  implications of third-party Call Processing Services (CPS). Those concerns
  mainly applied to proposals that do not conform to this draft, which mitigates
  those concerns by placing the CPS at of one of the parties to a
  call.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)
 
  There have been no threats of appeal or indications of discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
 
  The shepherd is aware of multiple non-public implementation efforts, but
  is not aware of any publicly available reports.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
 
  In the shepherd's opinion, the normal directorate reviews will be sufficient.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
  The draft does not specify models, media types, URIs, etc., that
  would trigger the need for formal expert reviews.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
 
  The draft does not specify a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
 
  The draft does not use formal languages that would trigger the need for
  checks. idnits 2.17.1 mentions the normative downref described later
  in this writeup, but otherwise finds no material issues.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
 
  The shepherd is of the opinion that this draft is ready to be handed off
  to the responsible area director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
   
    The document does not fall afoul of the issues listed for the ART area.
    While some issues in the SEC area list may apply, the shepherd believes
    they have had sufficient review by security experts who actively
    participate in the STIR working group.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
   
    The intended status is Proposed Standard. This is the proper status because
    the draft specifies how to implement an interoperable service. It contains
    normative requirements which, if ignored, could impact the operation and
    security of the service. The intended status is correctly indicated in the
    data tracker.
   
    Note that earlier versions were labeled as informational. The working group
    agreed to change the status to Proposed Standard for the reasons listed
    above. This change is reflected in version 5.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
   
    There are no IPR disclosures. The author has confirmed that there is no
    undisclosed IPR that he is aware of.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
   
    Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
   
    The only material nit of which the shepherd is aware is the normative
    downref described in 17.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
   
    The references are correctly categorized.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
   
    All normative references are to IETF RFCs.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
   
    There is a normative reference to an informational RFC: RFC 8816. This is
    appropriate because this draft describes a standard that realizes parts
    of the architecture defined in RFC 8816. That RFC is necessary reading
    to fully understand this draft. In particular, there are security
    considerations described in that RFC that implementors of this draft
    should understand. This downref should be called out in the IETF
    last call announcement.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
   
    All normative references are to published RFCs.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
   
    This draft does not change the status of any RFC.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
   
    The draft makes no requests of IANA.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
   
    The draft makes no requests of IANA.


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
 
  The consensus was mainly among a small group of individuals, but that is
  mostly standard operating procedure for the STIR working groups. Active
  participants comprise a small number of industry experts.
 
  Note: The primary consumers of the technologies collectively known as
  STIR are telecom SDOs that create profiles specific to their
  constituencies, for example, the ATIS/SIP Forum IP-NNI task force creates
  profiles of STIR as part of the SHAKEN framework for US telephone network
  operators.
 
 
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
 
  There have been concerns raised (mostly in venues other than STIR) about the
  potential for the substitution attack described in RFC 8816 section 7.4 could
  be a problem. There have been additional concerns raised about privacy
  implications of third-party Call Processing Services (CPS). Those concerns
  mainly applied to proposals that do not conform to this draft, which mitigates
  those concerns by placing the CPS at of one of the parties to a
  call.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)
 
  There have been no threats of appeal or indications of discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
 
  The shepherd is aware of multiple non-public implementation efforts, but
  is not aware of any publicly available reports.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
 
  In the shepherd's opinion, the normal directorate reviews will be sufficient.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
  The draft does not specify models, media types, URIs, etc., that
  would trigger the need for formal expert reviews.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
 
  The draft does not specify a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
 
  The draft does not use formal languages that would trigger the need for
  checks. idnits 2.17.1 mentions the normative downref described later
  in this writeup, but otherwise finds no material issues.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
 
  The shepherd is of the opinion that this draft is ready to be handed off
  to the responsible area director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
   
    The document does not fall afoul of the issues listed for the ART area.
    While some issues in the SEC area list may apply, the shepherd believes
    they have had sufficient review by security experts who actively
    participate in the STIR working group.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
   
    The intended status is Proposed Standard. This is the proper status because
    the draft specifies how to implement an interoperable service. It contains
    normative requirements which, if ignored, could impact the operation and
    security of the service. The intended status is correctly indicated in the
    data tracker.
   
    Note that earlier versions were labeled as informational. The working group
    agreed to change the status to Proposed Standard for the reasons listed
    above. This change is reflected in version 5.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
   
    There are no IPR disclosures. The author has confirmed that there is no
    undisclosed IPR that he is aware of.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
   
    Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
   
    The only material nit of which the shepherd is aware is the normative
    downref described in 17.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
   
    The references are correctly categorized.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
   
    All normative references are to IETF RFCs.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
   
    There is a normative reference to an informational RFC: RFC 8816. This is
    appropriate because this draft describes a standard that realizes parts
    of the architecture defined in RFC 8816. That RFC is necessary reading
    to fully understand this draft. In particular, there are security
    considerations described in that RFC that implementors of this draft
    should understand. This downref should be called out in the IETF
    last call announcement.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
   
    All normative references are to published RFCs.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
   
    This draft does not change the status of any RFC.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
   
    The draft makes no requests of IANA.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
   
    The draft makes no requests of IANA.


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
 
  The consensus was mainly among a small group of individuals, but that is
  mostly standard operating procedure for the STIR working groups. Active
  participants comprise a small number of industry experts.
 
  Note: The primary consumers of the technologies collectively known as
  STIR are telecom SDOs that create profiles specific to their
  constituencies, for example, the ATIS/SIP Forum IP-NNI task force creates
  profiles of STIR as part of the SHAKEN framework for US telephone network
  operators.
 
 
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
 
  There have been concerns raised (mostly in venues other than STIR) about the
  potential for the substitution attack described in RFC 8816 section 7.4 could
  be a problem. There have been additional concerns raised about privacy
  implications of third-party Call Processing Services (CPS). Those concerns
  mainly applied to proposals that do not conform to this draft, which mitigates
  those concerns by placing the CPS at of one of the parties to a
  call.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)
 
  There have been no threats of appeal or indications of discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
 
  The shepherd is aware of multiple non-public implementation efforts, but
  is not aware of any publicly available reports.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
 
  In the shepherd's opinion, the normal directorate reviews will be sufficient.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
  The draft does not specify models, media types, URIs, etc., that
  would trigger the need for formal expert reviews.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
 
  The draft does not specify a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
 
  The draft does not use formal languages that would trigger the need for
  checks. idnits 2.17.1 mentions the normative downref described later
  in this writeup, but otherwise finds no material issues.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
 
  The shepherd is of the opinion that this draft is ready to be handed off
  to the responsible area director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
   
    The document does not fall afoul of the issues listed for the ART area.
    While some issues in the SEC area list may apply, the shepherd believes
    they have had sufficient review by security experts who actively
    participate in the STIR working group.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
   
    The intended status is Proposed Standard. This is the proper status because
    the draft specifies how to implement an interoperable service. It contains
    normative requirements which, if ignored, could impact the operation and
    security of the service. The intended status is correctly indicated in the
    data tracker.
   
    Note that earlier versions were labeled as informational. The working group
    agreed to change the status to Proposed Standard for the reasons listed
    above. This change is reflected in version 5.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
   
    [In Progress]

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
   
    [In Progress]

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
   
    The only material nit of which the shepherd is aware is the normative
    downref described in 17.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
   
    The references are correctly categorized.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
   
    All normative references are to IETF RFCs.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
   
    There is a normative reference to an informational RFC: RFC 8816. This is
    appropriate because this draft describes a standard that realizes parts
    of the architecture defined in RFC 8816. That RFC is necessary reading
    to fully understand this draft. In particular, there are security
    considerations described in that RFC that implementors of this draft
    should understand. This downref should be called out in the IETF
    last call announcement.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
   
    All normative references are to published RFCs.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
   
    This draft does not change the status of any RFC.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
   
    The draft makes no requests of IANA.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
   
    The draft makes no requests of IANA.


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
 
  The consensus was mainly among a small group of individuals, but that is
  mostly standard operating procedure for the STIR working groups. Active
  participants comprise a small number of industry experts.
 
  Note: The primary consumers of the technologies collectively known as
  STIR are telecom SDOs that create profiles specific to their
  constituencies, for example, the ATIS/SIP Forum IP-NNI task force creates
  profiles of STIR as part of the SHAKEN framework for US telephone network
  operators.
 
 
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
 
  There have been concerns raised (mostly in venues other than STIR) about the
  potential for the substitution attack described in RFC 8816 section 7.4 could
  be a problem. There have been additional concerns raised about privacy
  implications of third-party Call Processing Services (CPS). Those concerns
  mainly applied to proposals that do not conform to this draft, which mitigates
  those concerns by placing the CPS at of one of the parties to a
  call.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)
 
  There have been no threats of appeal or indications of discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
 
  The shepherd is aware of multiple non-public implementation efforts, but
  is not aware of any publicly available reports.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
 
  In the shepherd's opinion, the normal directorate reviews will be sufficient.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
  The draft does not specify models, media types, URIs, etc., that
  would trigger the need for formal expert reviews.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
 
  The draft does not specify a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
 
  The draft does not use formal languages that would trigger the need for
  checks. idnits 2.17.1 mentions the normative downref described later
  in this writeup, but otherwise finds no material issues.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
 
  The shepherd is of the opinion that this draft is ready to be handed off
  to the responsible area director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
   
    The document does not fall afoul of the issues listed for the ART area.
    While some issues in the SEC area list may apply, the shepherd believes
    they have had sufficient review by security experts who actively
    participate in the STIR working group.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
   
    The intended status is Proposed Standard. This is the proper status because
    the draft specifies how to implement an interoperable service. It contains
    normative requirements which, if ignored, could impact the operation and
    security of the service. The intended status is correctly indicated in the
    data tracker.
   
    Note that earlier versions were labeled as informational. The working group
    agreed to change the status to Proposed Standard for the reasons listed
    above. This change is reflected in version 5.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
   
    [In Progress]

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
   
    [In Progress]

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
   
    The only material nit of which the shepherd is aware is the normative
    downref described in 17.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
   
    The references are correctly categorized.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
   
    All normative references are to IETF RFCs.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
   
    There is a normative reference to an informational RFC: RFC 8816. This is
    appropriate because this draft describes a standard that realizes parts
    of the architecture defined in RFC 8816. That RFC is necessary reading
    to fully understand this draft. In particular, there are security
    considerations described in that RFC that implementors of this draft
    should understand.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
   
    All normative references are to published RFCs.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
   
    This draft does not change the status of any RFC.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
   
    The draft makes no requests of IANA.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
   
    The draft makes no requests of IANA.


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
 
  The consensus was mainly among a small group of individuals, but that is
  mostly standard operating procedure for the STIR working groups. Active
  participants comprise a small number of industry experts.
 
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
 
  There have been concerns raised (mostly in venues other than STIR) about the
  potential for the substitution attack described in RFC 8816 section 7.4 could
  be a problem. There have been additional concerns raised about privacy
  implications of third-party Call Processing Services (CPS). Those concerns
  mainly applied to proposals that do not conform to this draft, which mitigates
  those concerns by placing the CPS at of one of the parties to a
  call.
   

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)
 
  There have been no threats of appeal or indications of discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
 
  The shepherd is aware of multiple non-public implementation efforts, but
  is not aware of any publicly available reports.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
 
  In the shepherd's opinion, the normal directorate reviews will be sufficient.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
  The draft does not specify models, media types, URIs, etc., that
  would trigger the need for formal expert reviews.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
 
  The draft does not specify a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
 
  The draft does not use formal languages that would trigger the need for
  checks. idnits 2.17.1 mentions the normative downref described later
  in this writeup, but otherwise finds no material issues.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
 
  The shepherd is of the opinion that this draft is ready to be handed off
  to the responsible area director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
   
    The document does not fall afoul of the issues listed for the ART area.
    While some issues in the SEC area list may apply, the shepherd believes
    they have had sufficient review by security experts who actively
    participate in the STIR working group.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
   
    The intended status is Proposed Standard. This is the proper status because
    the draft specifies how to implement an interoperable service. It contains
    normative requirements which, if ignored, could impact the operation and
    security of the service. The intended status is correctly indicated in the
    data tracker.
   
    Note that earlier versions were labeled as informational. The working group
    agreed to change the status to Proposed Standard for the reasons listed
    above. This change is reflected in version 5.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
   
    [In Progress]

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
   
    [In Progress]

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
   
    The only material nit of which the shepherd is aware is the normative
    downref described in 17.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
   
    The references are correctly categorized.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
   
    All normative references are to IETF RFCs.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
   
    There is a normative reference to an informational RFC: RFC 8816. This is
    appropriate because this draft describes a standard that realizes parts
    of the architecture defined in RFC 8816. That RFC is necessary reading
    to fully understand this draft. In particular, there are security
    considerations described in that RFC that implementors of this draft
    should understand.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
   
    All normative references are to published RFCs.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
   
    This draft does not change the status of any RFC.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
   
    The draft makes no requests of IANA.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
   
    The draft makes no requests of IANA.


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Changed from Informational to Proposed Standard in version 5. This was originally expected to be informational, but ended up making normative statements that seemed more appropriate for the standards track. Verified with STIR working group mailing list on Oct 30 with no objections.