[Rats] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-rats-eat-21: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rats-eat-21: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-eat/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[ Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS comment regarding company lifetime. ]

I mostly have a few comments:
1: It would have been really nice to have an example at the beginning of the
document to help make this less abstract for the reader. Yes, there are
examples further into the document, and a reader unfamiliar with the technology
can always go look at one of those, but having a (very simple) example near the
top of the document would help greatly...

2: S 4.2.1.1. Rules for Creating UEIDs
For the IEEE EUI you say: "This uses the IEEE company identification
registry.", but for 0x03 IMEI all you say is "This is a 14-digit identifier
consisting of an 8-digit Type Allocation Code and a 6-digit serial number
allocated by the manufacturer". This doesn't say who actually assigns the TAC
-- I believe that it is GSMA.

3: S 4.2.3.1. Random Number Based OEMID
"The OEM MAY create their own ID by using a cryptographic-quality random number
generator." -- the use of uppercase MAY feels weird here, and I suggest that
you s/MAY/may.

4: Nit.
"Certain EAT claims can be used to track the owner of an entity and therefore,
implementations should consider providing privacy-preserving options dependent
on the intended usage of the EAT." The grammar here seems odd -- I'd suggest:
"Certain EAT claims can be used to track the owner of an entity; therefore,
implementations should consider providing privacy-preserving options dependent
on the intended usage of the EAT."