I am the ART area reviewer for this document. This review is intended primarily for the ART AD's, and should be treated as any other last-call feedback by everyone else. There is nothing actionable here.

This specification uses CDDL, CBOR, CWT, etc. Assuming it uses those properly -- and according to the shepherd writeup[1] it has been reviewed by those groups -- then most of the ART issues are resolved "automatically."

It might be that I am not familiar enough with the field to understand all the aspects, but I think this document requires a very careful copy-edit and proofread. For example, Sec 2 talks says it is defining "one possible internal representation"; are others expected? Would the document be more clear if it instead talked solely about the items/factors/inputs to the evaluation? *Why* is an internal model described at all?

Another thing is that this could have been split into two documents, with sections 8 and following in a separate document: one describes the data, the second describes the evaluation of the data.

Were I on the IESG, I would vote "no objection" if I trusted the shepherd doc, WG chairs, document authors, and the Linux Foundation are right in their conclusion: this is needed. I'm skeptical.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-corim/shepherdwriteup/