Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-39: Yes
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I owe a sizeable apology to the authors and the WG for being rather unresponsive to attempts to discuss my previous Discuss points. I am sorry that I did not respond promptly (or, sometimes, at all) to questions about this document. Fortunately, the changes made to address my concerns have been successful even in my absence, and I appreciate the efforts of the WG members to push forward and make progress while I was not providing feedback. I made a pull request on github with some editorial-level suggestions: https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/337 and have only two other comments. Section 10.2.2 "Expert Review" with instructions to the experts to ensure that there is a public specification sounds basically equivalent to "Specification Required". Appendix B I think we should actually use the 'id-mod-public-notary-v2' OID allocated in Section 10.3 as the identifier for the module. _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
