%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-rats-pkix-key-attestation-07 instead of this revision.
@techreport{ietf-rats-pkix-key-attestation-02,
    number =    {draft-ietf-rats-pkix-key-attestation-02},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-pkix-key-attestation/02/},
    author =    {Mike Ounsworth and Jean-Pierre Fiset and Hannes Tschofenig and Henk Birkholz and Monty Wiseman and Ned Smith},
    title =     {{PKIX Evidence for Remote Attestation of Hardware Security Modules}},
    pagetotal = 53,
    year =      ,
    month =     ,
    day =       ,
    abstract =  {This document specifies a vendor-agnostic format for evidence produced and verified within a PKIX context. The evidence produced this way includes claims collected about a cryptographic module and elements found within it such as cryptographic keys. One scenario envisaged is that the state information about the cryptographic module can be securely presented to a remote operator or auditor in a vendor-agnostic verifiable format. A more complex scenario would be to submit this evidence to a Certification Authority to aid in determining whether the storage properties of this key meet the requirements of a given certificate profile. This specification also offers a format for requesting a cryptographic module to produce evidence tailored for expected use.},
}