Draft: draft-ietf-rats-architecture

Commentary: purpose statement into beginning of Security Considerations . I moved the statement to the beginning of section 12 , but maybe some wanted it moved to the beginning of 12.1 . 
 * * Section 12.1.1 An essential value - add provided by RATS is for the Relying Party to be able to trust the Attester even if the user or owner is not trusted . Is it more accurate to say that an " A foundational security assumption of a RATS architecture is that a Relying Party is able to trust the Attester even if the user or owner is not trusted " 
 Section 12.1.1 Is it more accurate to say that an " A foundational security assumption of a RATS architecture is that a Relying Party is able to trust the Attester even if the user or owner is not trusted " I think the statement is closer to " A foundational security assumption of a RATS architecture it that a Relying Party is able to establish the basis for trusting the Attester functions , or Attester users . 
 Remove word " assumption " , as this is an input , and we are talking about the output . move this sentence to the beginning of that section . " The fundamental purpose of the RATS architecture is to allow a Relying Party to establish a basis for trusting the Attester . "
Paragraph (version A):
This document provides an architecture for doing remote attestation.
No specific wire protocol is documented here.  Without a specific
proposal to compare against, it is impossible to know if the security
threats listed below have been mitigated well.  The security
considerations below should be read as being essentially requirements
against realizations of the RATS Architecture.  Some threats apply to
protocols, some are against implementations (code), and some threats
are against physical infrastructure (such as factories).
Paragraph (version B):
This document provides an architecture for doing remote attestation.
No specific wire protocol is documented here.  Without a specific
proposal to compare against, it is impossible to know if the security
threats listed below have been mitigated well.
Paragraph (version B):
The security considerations below should be read as being essentially
requirements against realizations of the RATS Architecture.  Some
threats apply to protocols, some are against implementations (code),
and some threats are against physical infrastructure (such as
factories).
Paragraph (version B):
The fundamental purpose of the RATS architecture is to allow a
Relying Party to establish a basis for trusting the Attester.
Paragraph (version A):
In many cases the user or owner of a device that includes the role of
Attester must not be able to modify or extract keys from the
Attesting Environments, to prevent creating forged Evidence.  Some
common examples include the user of a mobile phone or FIDO
authenticator.  An essential value-add provided by RATS is for the
Relying Party to be able to trust the Attester even if the user or
owner is not trusted.
Paragraph (version B):
In many cases the user or owner of a device that includes the role of
Attester must not be able to modify or extract keys from the
Attesting Environments, to prevent creating forged Evidence.  Some
common examples include the user of a mobile phone or FIDO
authenticator.