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