[Rats] eat-21

[Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I probably found some nits while reading the document. I do not speak
English as a native language, so  I could be wrong. Maybe these have
already been raised/discussed. I am just pointing at things that upset me
in a sense while reading.

The document is other wise in a good shape. Thanks for writing it.

Yours,
Daniel

section 4.2.15

"""  The defining characteristic is they are created by the software
manufacturer. """

We do understand the meaning, I am wondering if the formulation is
correct. Perhaps removing "they are".


"""

  Identification of the type of manifest is always by a CoAP
Content-Format integer [RFC7252].  If there is no CoAP identifier
registered for the manifest format, one MUST be registered.

"""

Perhaps "always provided". The first part of the second sentence may be
omitted.

4.3.1

"""
CWT allows the use floating-point for this claim.
"""
perhaps, the use "of".

6
"""
 The general EAT standard retains all this flexibility because it too is
aimed to accommodate a broad range of use cases.
"""

6.2.9.

"""
  For
   example, a profile should specify in full detail how COSE
"""

I am wondering if full details are not more appropriate. It seems both are
acceptable.

"""
For example, a profile should specify
   the full details of an X.509 hierarchy including extension
   processing, algorithms allowed and so on rather than just saying
   X.509 certificates are used.
"""

This is interesting the txt version is well displayed, but my printed
version does not have the same lines and shows something like:
"""
just saying X.\n
509 certificates....
"""

I am not sure there is anything to do.

9.5

"""
A detached EAT bundle is composed of a nested EAT and an unsigned claims
set as per Section 5 .
"""

I am wondering if that would not be claim set.




-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson