Original text:
4.  This document uses the following terms. 4.1. A role performed by an entity that depends on the validity of information about an Attester, for purposes of reliably applying <del> application specific actions.  Compare /relying party/ in RFC4949. </del>  Consumes: Attestation Results, Appraisal Policy for Attestation Results A piece of asserted information, often in the form of a name/value pair.  Claims make up the usual structure of Evidence and other <del> RATS artifacts.  Compare /claim/ in RFC7519. </del>  A secure statement that an Endorser vouches for the integrity of an Attester's various capabilities such as Claims collection and Produced By: Verifier A set of rules that informs how a Verifier evaluates the validity <del> of information about an Attester.  Compare /security policy/ in </del>  RFC4949. Consumed By: Verifier A set of rules that direct how a Relying Party uses the Attestation Results regarding an Attester generated by the <del> Verifiers.  Compare /security policy/ in RFC4949. </del>  Consumed by: Relying Party

Reviewer comments:
Despite fixes in , Roman asks: [Roman's comments on -13] -- Section 4.1. In the definition of relying party, what does the sentence fragment "Compare /relying party/ in [RFC4949]" mean? -- Section 4.2. Per the definition of "Claim", what does "Compare /claim/ in [RFC7519]" mean? -- Section 4.2. Per the definition of "Appraisal Policy for Attestation Results", what does "Compare /security policy/ in [RFC4949]" mean? I continue to hold the position that this language "Compare /xxx/ in RFC####" is not clear. In the natural language sense, that phrase doesn't parse. If the semantics are being taken from Section 2.6 of RFC4949, please explain that. However, it seems confusing to explicitly be listing antonyms (which RF4949 suggests is the meaning of the "Compare" notation). In the case of a claim, is it an antonym -- isn't a claim here in fact similar to the one in Section 2 of RFC7519?
`

Revised text:
4. <ins> RFC4949 has defined a number of terms that are also used in this document.  Some of the terms are close to, but not exactly the same. Where the terms are similar, they are noted below with references. As explained in RFC4949, Section 2.6 when this document says "Compare:", the terminology used in this document differs significantly from the definition in the reference. </ins> This document uses the following terms. 4.1. A role performed by an entity that depends on the validity of information about an Attester, for purposes of reliably applying  <ins> application specific actions.  Compare: /relying party/ in RFC4949. </ins> Consumes: Attestation Results, Appraisal Policy for Attestation Results A piece of asserted information, often in the form of a name/value pair.  Claims make up the usual structure of Evidence and other  <ins> RATS artifacts.  Compare: /claim/ in RFC7519. </ins> A secure statement that an Endorser vouches for the integrity of an Attester's various capabilities such as Claims collection and Produced By: Verifier A set of rules that informs how a Verifier evaluates the validity  <ins> of information about an Attester.  Compare: /security policy/ in </ins> RFC4949. Consumed By: Verifier A set of rules that direct how a Relying Party uses the Attestation Results regarding an Attester generated by the  <ins> Verifiers.  Compare: /security policy/ in RFC4949. </ins> Consumed by: Relying Party