Hi Madison, I had a quick look at the diff.
(1) I already noted the “PCIe IDE” commas issue in my previous mail. (2) I think half of this suggestion got lost: >> 5) <!-- [rfced] To clarify, does "it" refer to the Attesting Environment? >> >> Original: >> The assurance provided to a Relying Party >> depends on the authenticity and integrity properties of the Secure >> Channel used for conveying the UCCS to it. >> >> Perhaps: >> The assurance provided to a Relying Party >> depends on the authenticity and integrity properties of the Secure >> Channel used for conveying the UCCS to the Attesting Enviornment. >> --> > > Actually: > The assurance provided to a Relying Party > depends, among others, on the authenticity and integrity properties of the > Secure > Channel used for conveying the UCCS to the Relying Party. (Note the “among others” — clearly, this is not the only dependence, but we wanted to avoid the misunderstanding that we said that by being explicit.) (3) Last para of Section 4: ORIGINAL: (Note that EAT might add a nested UCCS Claim, and this […] CURRENT: (Note that an EAT might add a nested UCCS Claim, and this […] Here “EAT” was meant as a shorthand for “The EAT effort”, not as a single Entity Attestation Token. MAYBE: (Note that a nested UCCS Claim might be added to EAT, and this […] Grüße, Carsten -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
