[Rats] Re: Capitalization of RATS terms?

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Mike Ounsworth <Mike.Ounsworth=[e-mail]> wrote:
    > Hi RATS,



    > This is spill-over from a LAMPS thread about the CSR-Attest draft [1]



    > That draft has some multiple personality disorder going on because each
    > entity (like an HSM, or a certificate issuer) holds both a PKI role
    > ("certificate requester", "CA") as well as a RATS role ("Attester",
    > "Relying Party").

I prefer this.

    > The editorial question is: we are currently capitalizing the RATS
    > roles: Evidence, Attesting Environment, Attestation Results, Verifier,
    > etc since, to a PKI audience, we want to highlight that these are
    > defined terms, but Carl points out that this practice was removed from
    > EAT during IESG review.  Would, for example, a glossary of terms that
    > we are importing from RFC 9334 better serve this purpose?

I disagreed with the changes to EAT.
It seems to me that you have already imported the terms:

   This document re-uses the terms defined in [RFC9334] related to
   remote attestation.  Readers of this document are assumed to be
   familiar with the following terms: Evidence, Claim, Attestation
   Results (AR), Attester, Verifier, Target Environment, Attesting
   Environment, and Relying Party (RP).

...


--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide