Re: [Rats] Entity vs. role

[Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 5:58 PM Smith, Ned <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/22/22, 4:15 PM, "Thomas Fossati" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     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.
>
> [Ned] I'm suggesting that I-Ds qualify the architectural name in some appropriate manner such as "partially evaluated Evidence" rather than make up some new name that appears to be architectural but actually isn't.

OK, thanks for the clarification.  Then the agreement is violent, to
say the least :-)


-- 
Thomas