RATS Conceptual Messages Wrapper (CMW)
draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap-23

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap-21
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Ionuț Mihalcea for the shepherd's *very* detailed write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Abstract

Who is the `we` ? The authors ? The WG ? The IETF ? Let's avoid the use of ambiguous "we" (possibly also in other places).

### Section 1

Some graphics with all the parties and messages will make the text easier to read by non-RATS readers, pretty much like firgure 6 (even with SVG!) in appendix A.

### Section 3.1

May I assume that CBOR encoding can discreminate between an integer and a string ? This is about the "type" member.

s/ are registered at the time of writing,/ are registered *in this document*,/

### Section 3.1.1

s/The cm-type currently has five allowed values/The cm-type as defined by this document has five allowed values/

### Section 4.4.2

Please expand DICE at first use.

"Abstract", paragraph 0
> Abstract

I will note that the Shepherd Report called for an IOTDIR review to be done on the document. An early review was done on -04 version of the docuement, which put the state as "Almost ready". We are at version -21 now. A response from the authors indicates a follow-up was needed, but none can be seen in the mailing list.

The IANA review of this document seems to not have concluded yet.

No reference entries found for these items, which were mentioned in the text:
[draft-ftbs-rats-msg-wrap].


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 3.1, paragraph 8
>  in Section 8 of [RFC9334]. Note that that an Appraisal Policy may refer to 
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

Section 6, paragraph 16
> ntial Computing Consortium. The organisation hosts two libraries which allow 
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do not mix variants of the same word ("organisation" and "organization") within
a single text.

Section 11.1, paragraph 21
> e list of currently open issues for this documents can be found at https://gi
>                                     ^^^^
The singular determiner "this" may not agree with the plural noun "documents".
Did you mean "these"?

# Review of draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap-21

CC @MikeBishop

## Comments

### Section 1, paragraph 3
```
     *  In a "background check" topology, Evidence (e.g., EAT [RFC9711])
        first flows from the Attester to the Relying Party and then from
        the Relying Party to the Verifier, each leg following a separate
        protocol path.

     *  In a "passport" topology, an attestation result payload (e.g.,
        Attestation Results for Secure Interactions (AR4SI)
        [I-D.ietf-rats-ar4si]) is initially sent from the Verifier to the
        Attester, and later, via a different channel, from the Attester to
        the Relying Party.
```
An informative reference to the definition of these topologies would be nice.

### Section 5, paragraph 0

This can probably be removed, since IANA will have done so before this
draft is published. Alternatively, replace with a pointer to IANA Considerations.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Grammar/style

#### Section 3.1, paragraph 8
```
 in Section 8 of [RFC9334]. Note that that an Appraisal Policy may refer to
                                 ^^^^^^^^^
```
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

#### Section 5.4, paragraph 5
```
chars = ALPHA / DIGIT / "!" / "#" /"$" / "&" / "-" / "^" / "_" restricted-na
                                   ^
```
Missing space before "

#### Section 6, paragraph 16
```
ntial Computing Consortium. The organisation hosts two libraries which allow
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Do not mix variants of the same word ("organisation" and "organization") within
a single text.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF]. You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

Hi Thomas, all, 

Thank you for the discussion and for the changes made in -22 [1]. These addresses the comments raised in my previous ballot [2].

One very minor comment about the newly added figures: Other than that these are not called out in the main text, it is obvious that RP shown there is about Relying Party. You may consider s/Relying Party/Relying Party (RP) + adding captions for these two figures. Obviously, this is the kind of changes that can wait for AUTH48.

Cheers,
Med

[1] https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap-21&url2=draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap-22&difftype=--html

[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/kPi3XwQuOqvKln7NK1I_fdPdqts/

Thank you to Peter Yee for the GENART review.

Thanks for addressing my discuss: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/IGKTeqtXVIgQ_br5ueYtAqgt5DI/

And my comments: https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap/pull/269