Subject: [Rats] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 04:42:48 -0800

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest-11: 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/blog/handling-iesg-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-tpm-based-network-device-attest/

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

Agree with Ben's DISCUSS. This Informational document seems to want to
normatively talk about and reference quite a few other documents. However,
that's not really something an Informational document can really (normatively)
do.

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

 * Term "native"; alternatives might be "built-in", "fundamental",
   "ingrained", "intrinsic", "original" (matched "native" rule, pattern
   ((\bnative\w*\b)\w*)).

Thanks to Linda Dunbar for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/uJfSJiH2jjpTrxAlux60VNEDF-0).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 1.5. , paragraph 7, nit:
> station Result, used to inform decision making. In practice, this means comp
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The noun "decision-making" (= the process of deciding something) is spelled
with a hyphen.

Section 1.5. , paragraph 8, nit:
> ation expected by the Verifier. Subsequently the Appraisal Policy for Evidenc
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Subsequently".

Section 1.6. , paragraph 3, nit:
>  attestation of Linux or other multi-threaded operating system processes aft
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This word is normally spelled as one.

Section 2.1.1. , paragraph 8, nit:
> ader | 8 | 9 | | (e.g GRUB2 for Linux) |
>                   ^^^
The abbreviation "e.g." (= for example) requires two periods.

Section 2.3. , paragraph 16, nit:
> arly system startup (e.g., BIOS, boot loader, OS kernel) are essentially sing
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^
This word is normally spelled as one.

Section 2.4.1. , paragraph 5, nit:
> d in [I-D.ietf-rats-architecture]. However additional prerequisites have been
>                                    ^^^^^^^
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "However".

Section 4. , paragraph 10, nit:
>  redundant information, or add an additional layer of signing using external
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This phrase might be redundant. Consider either removing or replacing the
adjective "additional".

Document references draft-ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra-12, but -13 is the latest
available revision.

Document references draft-birkholz-rats-reference-interaction-model-03, but -05
is the latest available revision.

These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS:
 * http://www.uefi.org