> "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
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
