Ivan Petrov

Is it possible that we'll end up with 30+ different crates in the same directory? We probably could think about at least a small amount of top level crates: -...

I.e. I think it's ok to have a hierarchy even though crates are all at the same level. Since it's just for convenience of use and reading the code.

@ianull please reference this issue with when submitting code related to TFLM

From github updates: ``` rename {experimental/oak_baremetal_runtime => oak_functions_freestanding} ``` I think `freestanding` is not intuitive and doesn't describe what the object is. It's also not a noun.

I think `standalone` may be more understandable than `freestanding`. But we need to come up with a shorter and more intuitive name for the "thing that runs in the VM".

As a temporary solution we are going to serialize and deserializa protos in-place into structs from a different crate

Currently we are using [libcppbor](https://android.googlesource.com/platform/system/libcppbor)

> What is the migration plan for our clients? Internal clients depend on a specific commit. So once we submit this PR, we would be able to update their code...

> I don't have a strong objection to merging this. > > But the rationale for the original naming choice of `attestation` that the provided crypto functions operate with keys...

cc @conradgrobler @souravdasgupta for now the Protobuf `Attester` can live in the `oak_remote_attestation` crate (but potentially could be moved to a separate one). And we also can have a similar...