[Rats] Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap-21: (with COMMENT)

[Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>]

Hi Éric, thanks for the review and comments.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 at 18:01, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-
> CC @evyncke
>
> Thank you for the work put into this document.
>
> Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be
> appreciated even if only for my own education).
>
> Special thanks to Ionuț Mihalcea for the shepherd's *very* detailed write-up
> including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.

Indeed, Ionuț's work as a shepherd has been outstanding throughout the
entire process, and I would like to take this opportunity to echo your
praise.

> I hope that this review helps to improve the document,
>
> Regards,
>
> -éric
>
> ## COMMENTS (non-blocking)
>
> ### Abstract
>
> Who is the `we` ? The authors ? The WG ? The IETF ? Let's avoid the use of
> ambiguous "we" (possibly also in other places).

Addressed in https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap/pull/260/commits/e26dcd4

> ### Section 1
>
> Some graphics with all the parties and messages will make the text easier to
> read by non-RATS readers, pretty much like firgure 6 (even with SVG!) in
> appendix A.

Addressed in https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap/pull/260/commits/26bfd48

See https://ietf-rats-wg.github.io/draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap/ev/draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap.html#section-1
for the rendering.

> ### Section 3.1
>
> May I assume that CBOR encoding can discreminate between an integer and a
> string ? This is about the "type" member.

Yes.  In practice, see [1] and [2].

[1] https://github.com/veraison/cmw/blob/0879f4960b0746177930320a07f53432ab08038a/type.go#L60-L77
[2] https://github.com/veraison/rust-cmw/blob/main/src/type.rs

> s/ are registered at the time of writing,/ are registered *in this document*,/

Addressed in https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap/pull/260/commits/ae96a0f7

> ### Section 3.1.1
>
> s/The cm-type currently has five allowed values/The cm-type as defined by this
> document has five allowed values/

Addressed in https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap/pull/260/commits/9785925

> ### Section 4.4.2
>
> Please expand DICE at first use.

DICE originally stood for "Device Identifier Composition Engine", but
it is not expanded in the TCG documentation - in particular, in the
DICE architecture document referenced by CMW.  However, your comment
made me realise that we could replace DICE with TCG whereever we
discuss the compatibility between IETF and TCG CMWs.

See https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap/pull/260/commits/b4d27e79

cheers, thanks!