Re: [Trans] Adam Roach's COMMENT on draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 30 July 2021 04:00 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E84233A19AC for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 21:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0vJzDmHaM01W for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 21:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 880FF3A19AB for <trans@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 21:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4GbYZq0pH5z2pC; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 06:00:19 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1627617619; bh=PQHOaYkkyZZaTSm7BONROPIDmhTuWIwbrJGeQGkabn0=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=qySsjWJ9WHcZd5x2za+lLebaAQaAz8fmo3ZXKKJC/hj7JPwPSmaF2pBtMuXLFUiOs w9AhLSwCwayH6Y/Tjnw766wkCMRXb5ABm0btq1HPigjRawBKdsEqNcZpY2wh3QXEkj jTEWri7cq/saWmTZOPp25k5PYR5rtODta+Kn+2Xs=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W0Syag8_4GcW; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 06:00:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 06:00:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B2613D39B2; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 00:00:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC941D39B1; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 00:00:16 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 00:00:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
cc: "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <51d3de41-45dd-e3c-48d4-4bd92dfc613c@nohats.ca>
Message-ID: <584e184-398-f36b-4521-da3fbde39090@nohats.ca>
References: <97FC6C54-5642-4E0B-B6CB-F3231C58D7AF@akamai.com> <CAErg=HG3-TT++aU6mRQ7uyp_d0gLbUWU-3qVBzZ7fdAzHthtPA@mail.gmail.com> <C6F3ECDF-D16A-4BFC-BBF5-14F6577D26D2@akamai.com> <CAErg=HFo3AAV+=-C5wjvmcANF-PFvp+qzSupBJ-60VXsC-otcA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM4esxR_U6DNVnsjrY5B4v1zZRNQMjcz-fiK1iF+dL+3zrw0Rg@mail.gmail.com> <6846A60B-EAD5-4CF7-AFFB-FF9C7FA96895@akamai.com> <03314592-ed87-6b52-c6b2-6bfb06eb4fb6@isode.com> <51d3de41-45dd-e3c-48d4-4bd92dfc613c@nohats.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/HQminu2I0DjV9OLaSms10YKH_Mg>
Subject: Re: [Trans] Adam Roach's COMMENT on draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <trans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/trans/>
List-Post: <mailto:trans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 04:00:25 -0000

Hi Adam,

We believe the latest version which included the change of registries
from Expert Review to Specification Required resolves all your COMMENTs.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-40#section-10

Earlier updates had already fixed the boiler plate to use RFC 8174 text
and the use of "we have established".

Please let us know if you feel your COMMENTs have not been fully
addressed.

Paul