Subject: Re: [Rats] Review of draft-ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra-21

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 11:25:36 +0000

Thanks for the response to the questions. There are plenty of opportunities to submit an updated draft since the document has only been submitted to the IESG, as far as I can tell from the datatracker. Hence, there is no point in waiting for the RFC Editor to make changes.

A few remarks below.

--snip--
> The reason for the first part of the additional text is that there are 
> router/switch vendors (including Cisco) provide cryptoprocessors with 
> interfaces compliant to the TPM1.2 and TPM2.0 interface specification.
> However these cryptoprocessors have not gone through the TCG's 
> compliance verification process.  So a decision was made not to claim compliance.

This background is not visible to the reader. I thought you put this text in there to extend the scope of the document to other TEEs beyong TPM technologies.

Ciao
Hannes