Closed nicopal closed 2 years ago
Both definitions seem OK to me. The goal of the use cases isn't to provide a technical decomposition of the FIDO device IMHO. Rather, it is to provide a cursory level mapping to the abstract roles / role messages. In fact, if a change is needed I would simply have it say "Attester: FIDO Authenticator".
I agree that a technical decomposition is not the goal, however the current formulation just differs too much from the other ones. The change you suggested - "Attested: FIDO Authenticator" - is a good alternative.
"Attester: A FIDO Authenticator".
The current attester description in §2.7 is ambiguous and inconsistent with the earlier ones. Right now it reads: "Attester: Every FIDO Authenticator contains an Attester."
To clarify and align the attested description with the earlier ones, I suggest replacing this text with: "Attester component contained in a FIDO authenticator".