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

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 20:48:43 +0000

>    "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)
>  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?

Done; https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/339

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 23:44:48 -0400 (EDT)

> Done; https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/339

Ben,

This PR will be merged in shortly, and should address all your ballot
comments. Please let us know if you think any of your comments are
not addressed.

Paul

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 21:46:35 -0700

Hi Paul,

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 11:44:48PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > Done; https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/339__;!!GjvTz_vk!Emh3P5UeN0zpBrUmiYJ5e0MKWzeihw--5ub9zUz28cE3dYQ-h1Ps6fT5cky6Yw$
> 
> Ben,
> 

It looks good modulo the typo that I noted in github.

Thanks for confirming,

Ben