IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 30 July 2021 03:44 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 39ADA3A1919 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 20:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, 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 ftj1ND-Qo8mv for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 20:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::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 4161D3A1916 for <trans@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 20:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4GbYDz3ymSz2pC; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 05:44:51 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1627616691; bh=4Bv1fPSHC6cKqDTMaUY5KK5yjFWL8JldHGZHDsCeKPo=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=tuEJ7g9U2iziECETmXXpH71dONk3pFJ7/kyPzboJJhg/6OkTzHmgKmyzX0SLz5R7F L9gsWqe0xTl5dQKq2bmt+hKY6UCGGUyekdN6DC6lIrqyO0tc9E76I6xnr3Bd59Rf+6 WciGacDnawbi9Z92oZ4YFFMkoMqcCbluKNZBydsM=
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 V-lyy_gjvShZ; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 05:44:50 +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 05:44:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C9FCFD3997; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 23:44:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4CDBD3996; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 23:44:48 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 23:44:48 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
cc: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, Trans <trans@ietf.org>, "Kaduk, Ben" <bkaduk@akamai.com>
In-Reply-To: <61394D87-7089-421E-ACD9-65DD5104D392@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <3f9159b0-87f-26a4-47bf-7f7fb76f68ad@nohats.ca>
References: <61394D87-7089-421E-ACD9-65DD5104D392@akamai.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/fFIMlCQXOLtBX9xPELD1nj5zjQw>
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: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 03:44:59 -0000

On Thu, 29 Jul 2021, Salz, Rich wrote:

>
>>    "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

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email