Draft: draft-ietf-rats-reference-interaction-models

Commentary: fix some typos and optimize the newly diagrams to adapt to the width limitation 
 Thanks  ! My humongous backlog told me " you 'll fix this later " and now you did . Awesome !
Paragraph (version A):
According to the RATS Architecture, two reference models for
Challenge/Response Attestation have been proposed.  This section
highlights the information flows bewteen the Attester, Verifier and
Relying Party undergoing Remote Attestation Procedure, using these
models.
Paragraph (version B):
According to the RATS Architecture, two reference models for
Challenge/Response Attestation have been proposed.  This section
highlights the information flows bewteen the Attester, Verifier, and
Relying Party undergoing Remote Attestation Procedure, using these
models.
Paragraph (version A):
The passport model is so named because of its resemblance to how
nations issue passports to their citizens.  In this model, the
attestation sequence is a two step procedure.  In the first step, an
Attester conveys Evidence to a Verifier which compares the Evidence
against its appraisal policy.  The Verifier then gives back an
Attestation Result to the Attester, which simply caches it.  In the
second step, the Attester presents the Attestation Result (and
possibly additional Claims/evidence) to a Relying Party, which then
compares this information against its own appraisal policy to
establish the trustworthiness of the Attester.
Paragraph (version B):
The passport model is so named because of its resemblance to how
nations issue passports to their citizens.  In this model, the
attestation sequence is a two-step procedure.  In the first step, an
Attester conveys Evidence to a Verifier, which compares the Evidence
against its appraisal policy.  The Verifier then gives back an
Attestation Result to the Attester, which simply caches it.  In the
second step, the Attester presents the Attestation Result (and
possibly additional Claims/evidence) to a Relying Party, which then
compares this information against its own appraisal policy to
establish the trustworthiness of the Attester.
Paragraph (version A):
The background-check model is so named because of the resemblance of
how employers and volunteer organizations perform background checks.
In this model, the attestation sequence is initiated by a Relying
Party.  The Attester conveys Evidence to the Relying Party, which
does not process its payload, but realys the message and optionally
check its signature against a policed trust anchor store.  Upon
receiving the evidence the Relying Party initiates a session with the
Verifier.  Once session is established, it forwards the received
Evidence to the Verfier.  The Verifier, appraises the received
Evidence according to its appraisal policy for Evidence and returns a
corresponding Attestation Result to the Relying Party.  The Relying
Party then checks the Attestation Result against its own appraisal
policy to conclude attestation.
Paragraph (version B):
The background-check model is so named because of the resemblance of
how employers and volunteer organizations perform background checks.
In this model, the attestation sequence is initiated by a Relying
Party.  The Attester conveys Evidence to the Relying Party, which
does not process its payload, but relays the message and optionally
checks its signature against a policed trust anchor store.  Upon
receiving the Evidence, the Relying Party initiates a session with
the Verifier.  Once the session is established, it forwards the
received Evidence to the Verifier.  The Verifier appraises the
received Evidence according to its appraisal policy for Evidence and
returns a corresponding Attestation Result to the Relying Party.  The
Relying Party then checks the Attestation Result against its own
appraisal policy to conclude attestation.