Subject: [Trans] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-39: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 22:18:15 -0700

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-39: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I owe a sizeable apology to the authors and the WG for being rather
unresponsive to attempts to discuss my previous Discuss points.
I am sorry that I did not respond promptly (or, sometimes, at all) to
questions about this document.
Fortunately, the changes made to address my concerns have been
successful even in my absence, and I appreciate the efforts of the WG
members to push forward and make progress while I was not providing
feedback.

I made a pull request on github with some editorial-level suggestions:
https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/337
and have only two other comments.

Section 10.2.2

"Expert Review" with instructions to the experts to ensure that there is
a public specification sounds basically equivalent to "Specification
Required".

Appendix B

I think we should actually use the 'id-mod-public-notary-v2' OID
allocated in Section 10.3 as the identifier for the module.