Re: [Rats] Composite Evidence

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Eric Voit (evoit) <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> If it makes sense to define "routing claims" that assert that A2 intended to
    >> piggy back AR1 with E2 then that should imply that if E2 = (c1) and c2 =
    >> routing claim then E2' = (c1, c2). The conveyance still carries (AR1, E2') , but
    >> possibly the c2 claim names AR1 as the piggy i.e. c2.name = "AR1".
    >>
    >> V2 can verify the c2 claim and create an AR2' claim c3.name="AR1" and send
    >> (AR1, AR2'); where AR2 = (c4,...,cn) and AR2' = (c3, c4,...,cn). RP can similarly
    >> verify c3. Namely, the c3.name="AR1" claim is inspected to have payload AR1
    >> as piggy.
    >>
    >> The "routing" claims are ancillary to the basic roles and messages that are
    >> the core basis for trust among the endpoint entities -  IMO. The core flows
    >> are separable from routing. Routing shouldn't lead us down a path of having
    >> new types of evidence (E3).

    eric> I agree that routing itself doesn't imply a new type of evidence.
    eric> What we do have at Attester is some trigger for when to collect the
    eric> specific set of claims which are needed by the Relying Party to
    eric> accomplish a particular use case.

I think that it's important.
In my automobile/tire situation, it is important that the attestation result
that my car sends are for tires attached to *my* car.  Even if they were on
your car this morning when they were evaluated.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-