Re: [Rats] Entity vs. role

[Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>]

hi Ned

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 1:13 PM Smith, Ned <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> (not as chair)
>
> One of the topics discussed during RATS113 session I seemed to focus on architectural considerations for entities vs. roles. The architecture draft summarizes concisely:
>
> “In essence, an entity that combines more than one role creates and consumes the corresponding conceptual messages as defined in this document.”
>
>
>
> This is different from a distributed Verifier that operates on a portion of a conceptual message and (possibly) forwards a portion for some other Verifier to consume. The architecture didn’t attempt to name partially processed conceptual messages distributed across multiple entities.

I fully agree with this.

> It may be helpful for drafts to give names to partially processed conceptual messages

As you say, a Verifier implementation can fraction and distribute the
appraisal box the way it wants.  It seems to me though that trying to
name these intermediates equates to making the internal
(implementation-specific) interfaces explicit, which is something we
should really avoid at least until we decide it's time to revise the
architecture to break down the Verifier box.

> but until processing is complete (and therefore becomes a different conceptual message) it should still be correct to refer to the partially processed conceptual message by it’s architectural name (e.g., Evidence that has been authenticated but not appraised would still be regarded as Evidence architecturally. Appraisal results that haven’t been authenticated to a Verifier might still be called Evidence up until all the requirements for being called Attestation Results are satisfied.)

I also fully agree with this.

-- 
Thomas