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