[Rats] draft-ietf-rats-endorsements-09 ietf last call Artart review

[Jim Fenton via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Document: draft-ietf-rats-endorsements
Title: RATS Endorsements
Reviewer: Jim Fenton
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am the assigned ARTART reviewer for this draft. I have had no prior exposure
to the RATS architecture, so please read this review accordingly.

Given the many references to RFC9334, and the fact that I couldn't really
understand this draft without referring to it, I feel that RFC9334 should be a
normative reference rather than an informative one.

In Section 2 paragraph 1, I don't understand what "shape" means and don't see
that term used elsewhere. Does it refer to the structure of the Attester, to
the Attester's state of health, or something else?

I found the capitalization of terms that have specific meanings in RATS to be
very helpful. They prompted me to refer to refer back to RFC9334 if the term
wasn't clear from the context. However, there are a few capitalized terms that
are capitalized inconsistently, and perhaps shouldn't be. I noticed
"Timeliness" and "Environment" (Sec. 5 paragraphs 1 and 2); there may be others
too.

In the last paragraph of Section 8, is it important that a mutually
authenticated channel be used, since the source information is
cryptographically signed?

In other respects, this seems ready to go.

-Jim