MCR's WGLC review (the nits)

[thomas-fossati]

Archived-at: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/2QO5c4m6lq7HvEjBiccQy8-JakM/

nits:

I found 2. Actual State vs Reference State could be more clear about
Actual/Reference being things.  I suggest that maybe paragraph 3 and 4 could
either be subsections, or maybe definition list if you prefer.

Also:
        That is, where actual state has a single value per claim per Target
        Environment applying to one device at one point in time, reference
        state can have a set of values per claim per Target Environment.

I found this single sentence to be too much.
Could it be reworded into two sentences?  Perhaps

        A reference state can have a set of values per claim per Target
        Environment.  This is contrasted with actual state, which has a
        single value per claim per Target Environment.
        Actual states apply to one device at one point in time.

Figure 1 has this anomaly of actual state layer-0 being an Endorsement vs
Evidence.  This is explained two paragraphs layer.  I wonder if that
paragraph could be earlier?

section 4:
s/While this is typical, cryptography other than public key may also be
        used./
 /While use of public key cryptography is typical for a verification key,
        cryptography other than public key may also be used./

Questions like that given in paragraph 4 of section 4, about a certificate
that passes up to a trusted root, or... that belongs in Protocol
documentation ought to be collected into a section or appendix.

The 'sometimes' is used twice. Not sure it should even be used once :-)
Also: "Some implementations..", and to me these read like SHOULDs that
haven't had their exceptions explained.
I recognize the authors are trying to be inclusive of many views, but it
might be better to just be opininated, and make the exceptions more clearly
articulated.