[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rats-architecture-21

[Gyan Mishra via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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