Reviewer: Gyan Mishra Review result: Ready with Nits I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-?? Reviewer: Gyan Mishra Review Date: 2022-08-19 IETF LC End Date: 2022-09-01 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: This document provides an architectural overview of the entities involved that make such tests possible through the process of generating, conveying, and evaluating evidentiary claims. An attempt is made to provide for a model that is neutral toward processor architectures, the content of claims, and protocols. Major issues: None Minor issues: As this is a architecture specification should this be standards track. Normative language should then be applied where applicable. As the architecture of rats is related to security a lot of what is in the security considerations to me seems part of the architecture and maybe should be moved to the body of the document or appendix. Section 3 describes the environment of an attester. Section 3.2 clearly describes a layered environment, however section 3.3 describes a composite environment using a carrier grade router as an example. I think here the composite should be described just as is done in the layer environment section but not referencing an environment use case that may not be applicable to RAT. So within a carrier grade router chassis the backplane communication is all done vendor proprietary no external elements so I don’t see how trust comes into play as well as the backplane communication is hardware bus elements for backplane throughput for the LC and then as well router OS software component for the backplane communication. I think maybe choosing a better example that applies to RAT composite environment would be better. Nits/editorial comments: Throughout the document there are acronyms used and the acronyms have not been expanded. Few words like ROM, BIOS, TEEP, TLS, CWT, JWT, X.509, TPM etc -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
