[Rats] Re: draft-ietf-rats-endorsements-09 ietf last call Opsdir review

[Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jen,

Thanks very much for your review!

I have made an initial attempt to address your comments.
You can view it at
https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/rats-endorsements/pull/86/changes

Please let us know if you are happy with the proposal.
If not, feel free to suggest any changes :-)

cheers!


On Mon, Sep 7, 2026 at 1:55 AM Jen Linkova via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Document: draft-ietf-rats-endorsements
> Title: RATS Endorsements
> Reviewer: Jen Linkova
> Review result: Has Nits
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been selected as the Operational Directorate (opsdir) reviewer for this
> Internet-Draft.
>
> While these comments are primarily for the Operations and Management Area
> Directors (Ops ADs), the authors should consider them alongside other feedback
> received.
>
> - Document: draft-ietf-rats-endorsements-09
>
> - Reviewer: Jen Linkova
>
> - Review Date: Sep 7 2026
>
> - Intended Status: Informational
>
> ---
>
> ## Summary
>
> I found the document well-written and easy to understand. I am on the fence
> about whether to make it as 'Ready' or 'has nits' as I only have one comment
> (see below).
>
> ## Major Issues
>
> No major issues found.
> ---
>
> ## Minor Issues
>
> Section 2 does a good job providing a brief introduction to the RATS
> architecture (RFC 9334) for unfamiliar readers. However, it would benefit
> greatly from an explicit explanation of what Endorsements are and how they
> differ from Evidence, or at least a reference to Section 4.2 of RFC 9334.
>
> Currently, the distinction between Evidence and Endorsements is left implicit.
> (I guess it's assumed that a reader is familiar with RFC9334 but then such
> assumption would render a lot of text in this draft redundant..So IMHO it's
> worth trying to explain early in the document.
>
> Figure 1 implies that Endorsements apply only to the lowest layer, but it is
> unclear whether this is a general rule or just a specific example.
> Specifically, it would be helpful to reference or quote Section 3.4 of RFC 9334:
>
> "Normally, Claims are not self-asserted. Rather, a previous layer acts as the
> Attesting Environment for the next layer. Claims about an initial layer are
> typically asserted by an Endorser."
>
> (it might be also useful to mention that multiple Endorsements are possible and
> discussed in Section 6).
>
> Cheers, Jen Linkova
>
>


-- 
Thomas