[dmsc] Re: Comments on draft-dunbar-dmsc-gw-scenarios-gap-analysis-02: evidence for action-level authorization (5.4, 6.9, 7.7)

[Iman Schrock <[e-mail]>]

Dear Linda,

A quick update, and thank you again for the way you handled the DMSC comments.

The boundary you described in your proposed text for Sections 6.9 and
6.7 is now reflected in a public EMILIA artifact, the Action Evidence
Boundary (AEB):

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schrock-action-evidence-boundary/

Your text identifies the requirement: a receiving gateway may need
independently verifiable approval evidence bound to the specific
action, evaluated under the receiving gateway's own trust anchors, and
recorded separately from its local allow-or-deny decision. AEB
provides a concrete profile and implementation of that boundary. It
separates deriving and matching the exact material action with CAID,
verifying the supplied evidence, determining whether it satisfies the
relying party's requirement, making the gateway's local decision,
consuming the authorization, and recording the eventual outcome.

That separation is useful whether DMSC keeps the requirement
mechanism-neutral or decides that a concrete reference, worked
example, or interoperability profile would help. EMILIA is available
for any of those roles. The artifact can travel between gateways while
each gateway retains its own trust configuration and enforcement
decision.

If useful, I can contribute whichever form best fits the authors' direction:

1. concise text or an informative reference for Sections 6.7 and 6.9;
2. a runnable two-gateway example in which both gateways verify the
same action-bound evidence independently; or
3. a short mapping showing how CAID and AEB satisfy the requirements
without changing DMSC's gateway transport model.

I would value your view on which of those would be most useful. If you
think the work merits a stronger role in DMSC's next steps, I would
also be glad to work with you and the other authors on the appropriate
path.

Thank you again for the detailed response and for incorporating the
earlier suggestions.

Best,
Iman