The introduction section starts somewhat directly without providing any motivation why this specification is required. Here are some specific suggestions:
Explain further the following point from the abstract:
This information exchange may happen at different layers in the protocol stack.
For instance, provide examples of the layers and one concrete implementation for each layer. Then justify the limitation of each of these existing solutions (such as RA-TLS) to clarify why this specification is required.
Two paragraphs on encoding formats do not seem relevant, as:
This document does not define how different attestation technologies are encoded.
I think they can be removed to make the introduction more focused and concise.
Add a reference to RFC9334 in the first sentence.
Elaborate the following:
These two models are fundamentally different and require a different treatment when incorporated into the TLS handshake.
The second paragraph only summarizes the general topological differences which are already presented in RFC9334. I would like to see the draft explicitly state, for instance, what is the fundamental technical difference in the specific context of this draft? And why this difference leads to a crucial difference to treat them differently?
Elaborate the following:
the details about the attestation technology are agnostic to the TLS handshake itself
For example, what kind of details? Maybe a couple of examples.
I found the penultimate paragraph very hard to read, perhaps due to many terms introduced without definitions and/or references.
The introduction section starts somewhat directly without providing any motivation why this specification is required. Here are some specific suggestions:
For instance, provide examples of the layers and one concrete implementation for each layer. Then justify the limitation of each of these existing solutions (such as RA-TLS) to clarify why this specification is required.
I think they can be removed to make the introduction more focused and concise.
The second paragraph only summarizes the general topological differences which are already presented in RFC9334. I would like to see the draft explicitly state, for instance, what is the fundamental technical difference in the specific context of this draft? And why this difference leads to a crucial difference to treat them differently?
For example, what kind of details? Maybe a couple of examples.