[Rats] Re: AD comments on draft-ietf-rats-eat-measured-component

[Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>]

Thank you very much for the review, Deb.

We will address your comments and publish a new version of the document.

The tracking issue is [1]

cheers, t

[1] https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/draft-ietf-rats-eat-measured-component/issues/70

On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 at 13:14, Deb Cooley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Thank you for this work.  I found this draft easy to read and well organized.  I have a few easy comments for you to address before I submit this draft to IETF Last Call.  They are:
>
> General:  Spell out acronyms on first use:  EAT, CoSWID, CoAP, CDDL, CBOR, (Anything that isn't listed here with a '*':  https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=abbrev_list)
>
> Section 3, Table 1:  Please add Semantic Versioning - https://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0.html - to the references (it should be a stable reference since it is normative).
>
> Section 4.3:  There are some items that don't really match here.  Is 'id' really 'component-id'?  Is 'authorities' really 'authorities-label'?  Is 'flags' really 'flags-
> label'?  There are more of these, I can't tell if the mis-matches are by design, or due to imprecise editing.
>
> Section 4.3.1:  Is 'version-scheme' the same as 'sw-version-type'?
>
> Section 4.3.2:  Would 'Authority Identifier' be a more accurate heading?
>
> Section 4.3.2, para 2, sentence 1:  While 'signing key' is technically accurate 'signing public key' is more accurate.
>
> Section 8.1:  Both [IANA.core-parameters] and [IANA.media-types] are Informative references as they are only referenced in the IANA section.  ([IANA.named-information] is normative as it is referenced in Section 4.2 in a way that requires the reader to understand what is there.)
>
> Deb Cooley
> Sec AD
>
>