Re: [Rats] looking for better terms -- request for bike shed discussion

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Thank you for this very nice text. I rather like it.

Laurence Lundblade <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > Here’s some rough text:

    > Conceptually, the “attester” produces a set of “claims” about a “target”.
    > The claims are known as “attestation evidence” and are sent to the
    > “verifier”. The verifier additionally takes in “endorsements”, processes
    > the attestation evidence and produces the “attestation result” for the
    > final consumer, the “relying party”.


    > This description left conceptual for easy understanding and discussion.
    > Actual implementations are usually more complex in at least one or more
    > of these ways:



    > * The attester is also the target


    > * One attester produces claims about several targets (submodules)


    > * The verifier and the relying party are the same
    > * Claims may be simple or complex, many or few
    > * Some claims are measurements and some are not
    > * Some claims in in the attestation evidence may be simply passed
    > through the verifier, others may be heavily processed.
    > * Daisy chaining -- the evidence from one attester goes through a
    > verifier producing results which are taken as claims that are input
    > to another attester that outputs a different set of evidence that
    > goes on through a different verifier.
    > * Daisy chaining may happen on the device producing the attestations
    > or in the infrastructure evaluating the device or both.


    > (Next I’d write a plethoras of simple examples for attester, target,
    > claims… assuming only the simplest implementation that maps to the
    > conceptual description )






    > I am starting to prefer the basic conceptual / abstract description over one
    > that is inherently mappable to every possible.

    > LL