Subject: [Trans] Processing feedback from IESG review on draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis

From: Roman Danyliw <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 18:29:33 +0000

Hi!

After the final push, draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis is in the "Approved-announcement to be sent" state.  This means that there are no more blocking comments from the IESG.  Nevertheless there are a number of the ADs suggestions which seem appropriate and would improve the document quality.  Please review this feedback and provide responses as appropriate.

==[ Ben's comments 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/ballot/#benjamin-kaduk

(1) 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".

[Roman] The described process does appear to be the "Specification Required" (which always also includes Expert Review) + more specific Expert Review guidance (i.e., concurrence with the TLS SignatureScheme Registry and evaluation of the cryptographic signature algorithm)

(2) 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.

[Roman] Seems right.  Why not do that?

==[ Erik's comments
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/ballot/#erik-kline

[Roman] The first two seem like trivial editorial fixes.

==[ Martin's comments
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/ballot/#martin-duke

[Roman] Please respond the Martin's design questions

Regards,
Roman