[Rats] Re: Question for the Multiple Verifiers Draft

[Muhammad Usama Sardar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hannes,

Unfortunately, not an answer to your question, but a related note that 
might bring everyone on the same page:

On 31.03.26 13:54, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>
>  1. Do you expect nonces to be generated by the verifiers?
>
As some of us discussed in the attested TLS as well as composite 
attesters design team meetings (both on 16.02.), I think there is a need 
to qualify the usage of "nonce" because I believe there has been 
potential confusion in the discussions:

 1. Protocol nonce (such as client nonce and server nonce in TLS)
 2. Attestation nonce (for attestation)
 3. Cryptographic nonce (e.g., for ECDSA)

See how Ned precisely distinguishes those [0] and related issues for 
details [1,2].

ISTM that reference interaction models draft hasn't done justice with 
this and closed the issue [1], so I plan to discuss this in more detail 
in draft-sardar-rats-sec-cons [3].

Best,

-Usama

[0] https://github.com/mcr/composite-attesters/issues/25

[1] 
https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/draft-ietf-rats-reference-interaction-models/issues/82

[2] https://github.com/tls-attestation/exported-attestation/issues/57

[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sardar-rats-sec-cons/