Hi! After the final push, draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis is in the "Approved-announcement to be sent" state. This means that there are no more blocking comments from the IESG. Nevertheless there are a number of the ADs suggestions which seem appropriate and would improve the document quality. Please review this feedback and provide responses as appropriate.
==[ Ben's comments https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/ballot/#benjamin-kaduk (1) 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". [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) (2) 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. [Roman] Seems right. Why not do that? ==[ Erik's comments https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/ballot/#erik-kline [Roman] The first two seem like trivial editorial fixes. ==[ Martin's comments https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/ballot/#martin-duke [Roman] Please respond the Martin's design questions Regards, Roman _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
