Draft: draft-ietf-rats-architecture

Commentary: Reworded 2nd and 3rd paragraphs 
 ` Is there a different way to say this ? I assume in Passport , we ’re not relying on the Attester to report itself as untrustworthy ? I think it ’s more that it does n’t get a passport , so it has nothing to hand the dude at the immigration desk ? i.e. untrustworthiness is indicated by lack of a passport ? 
 The paragraph should begin with " An Attestation Result that indicates ... " The Relying Party is always the entity / role that consumes the Attestation Result . The text that describes the Attester ( in the passport model ) technically violates the role interaction model . Instead , the refusal on behalf of an Attester ( acting as a proxy for the Attestation Result ) to convey the AR is a protocol or interaction break down scenario . And yes it is correct for the Relying Party to , by default , assume that lack of receipt of an Attestation Result means the Attester is presumed to be non - compliant . If the paragraph stated this simply up front then we can avoid dove tailing it into the description of what constitutes non - compliance behavior . For example , paragraph 2 could start differently : " By default the Relying Party assumes the Attester does not comply with Verifier appraisals . Upon receipt of an authentic Attestation Result and given the Appraisal Policy for Relying Party is satisfied . The Attester 's state of compliance changes to be in compliance and actions consistent with compliance may be applied . If the Appraisal Policy for Relying Party is not satisfied , actions consistent with non - compliance may be applied . For example , the Attester may require remediation and re - configuration or simply may be denied further access . " The third paragraph seems redundant to this ( and somewhat wordy ) .
Paragraph (version A):
A result that indicates non-compliance can be used by an Attester (in
the passport model) or a Relying Party (in the background-check
model) to indicate that the Attester should not be treated as
authorized and may be in need of remediation.  In some cases, it may
even indicate that the Evidence itself cannot be authenticated as
being correct.
Paragraph (version A):
An Attestation Result that indicates compliance can be used by a
Relying Party to make authorization decisions based on the Relying
Party's appraisal policy.  The simplest such policy might be to
simply authorize any party supplying a compliant Attestation Result
signed by a trusted Verifier.  A more complex policy might also
entail comparing information provided in the result against Reference
Values, or applying more complex logic on such information.
Paragraph (version B):
An Attestation Result that indicates non-compliance can be used by an
Attester (in the passport model) or a Relying Party (in the
background-check model) to indicate that the Attester should not be
treated as authorized and may be in need of remediation.  In some
cases, it may even indicate that the Evidence itself cannot be
authenticated as being correct.
Paragraph (version B):
By default, the Relying Party does not believe the Attester to be
compliant.  Upon receipt of an authentic Attestation Result and given
the Appraisal Policy for Attestation Results is satisfied, then the
Attester is allowed to perform the prescribed actions or access.  The
simplest such Appraisal Policy might authorize granting the Attester
full access or control over the resources guarded by the Relying
Party.
A more complex Appraisal Policy might involve using the information
provided in the Attestation Result to compare against expected
values, or to apply complex analysis of other information contained
in the Attestation Result.