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

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Thu, 29 July 2021 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.com>
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 E04F03A0B1A for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.548
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.452, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
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 a23ekkqcTmqa for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (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 489073A0B78 for <trans@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0122332.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 16TKhraQ014599; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 21:48:45 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=ZQ29f7KG+4TUN89O2G6xrMfLsdYKTWVgOF1IYSmefuo=; b=Txg6Ccc0k2EsuaypFxL55WGPqbNw2UlFhUujce2utCcvwoSrNhhvoRkA918cwdj2wZw2 qGgl3wdGv+PxHNrs1hv6OGEdJivtDaBEVquxvF1QdWdfulY7g0l7tnoeMgfAtuh7ky6o LncGZVJWkv5cWgI5IHxxgbx4ZxVv/WmdI6hYOxB2RqlcocHE/M9YP6Tb9DckZyfWwG79 mu8wDKjAsr/UXYwk+SRWnwCkIr/0vVbgKWGmKOYNUZm6c2ks+oJG3TwvP2idbvjcJlqe HK3dmYF0TfnjhWDrZnHionWZ/TGqck0M157lR53bbBYrSvkSxZBblVDRtYBp+eaQ5Ipt iQ==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint7 (a72-247-45-33.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [72.247.45.33] (may be forged)) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3a36sc6ht0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 29 Jul 2021 21:48:45 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint7.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint7.akamai.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 16TKZdTI016259; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 16:48:44 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.115]) by prod-mail-ppoint7.akamai.com with ESMTP id 3a36py8njk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 29 Jul 2021 16:48:44 -0400
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.165.119) by USTX2EX-DAG3MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.165.127) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.23; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 15:48:43 -0500
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.119]) by ustx2ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.119]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.023; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 15:48:43 -0500
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, Trans <trans@ietf.org>
CC: "Kaduk, Ben" <bkaduk@akamai.com>
Thread-Topic: [Trans] Processing feedback from IESG review on draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis
Thread-Index: AQHXhLsexcR7//COmUe73LEck6jOrg==
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 20:48:43 +0000
Message-ID: <61394D87-7089-421E-ACD9-65DD5104D392@akamai.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.51.21071101
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.27.164.43]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <5830A5B2DAD5A945A1C2E3C134F5EF14@akamai.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.790 definitions=2021-07-29_16:2021-07-29, 2021-07-29 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=825 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2107140000 definitions=main-2107290126
X-Proofpoint-GUID: EEDAoB1xsWYqERbkwNkAi_5YDSeeU_JW
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: EEDAoB1xsWYqERbkwNkAi_5YDSeeU_JW
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.790 definitions=2021-07-29_16:2021-07-29, 2021-07-29 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=857 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2107140000 definitions=main-2107290127
X-Agari-Authentication-Results: mx.akamai.com; spf=${SPFResult} (sender IP is 72.247.45.33) smtp.mailfrom=rsalz@akamai.com smtp.helo=prod-mail-ppoint7
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/JJdZ3fRpR7OD0mxCyndhQgJRVow>
Subject: Re: [Trans] Processing feedback from IESG review 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: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 20:48:56 -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