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

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

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

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

Thanks for confirming,

Ben