[Rats] AD comments on draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap

[Deb Cooley <[e-mail]>]

General:  Please double check all code snippets and figures for
correctness.

General:  What is the rationale for the word 'conceptual'?  Are the
'messages' theoretical? [I looked in RFC 9334 and it is never defined.]  At
some point does this draft discuss real message types? Or only theoretical
message types?

Section 3.1:  Record CMWs can only be JSON or CBOR?  No other conceptual
message representations are possible?

Section 3.1, ind:  json-record has a bitmap?  How is that encoded?

Section 3.3, para 6:  Can OIDs be something other than 'absolute'?

Section 4.4, para 6:  'Legacy relying parties' will ignore non-critical
extensions and will reject the certificate for unknown critical
extensions.  Is this the desired outcome?  There are very few critical
extensions in a certificate normally.  I suggest removing ', and there is a
risk that legacy relying parties would bypass such controls.'

Section 7:  Please add the statement suggested by RFC 7942, section 2.1 to
advise the Editor to remove the section before publication.

Deb
Sec AD