[Rats] Re: Adoption call for draft-richardson-rats-geographic-results

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

camilo ayerbe <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > conclusion from Evidence it appraised itself, so this is basis = evidence
    > and not the two-hop endorsement case Michael raised. TRIP is the document a
    > registry entry would point at, once it's stable enough to cite.

    > The caveat: TRIP's Attestation Result today doesn't carry a
    > jurisdiction.

    > The certificate emits statistical exponents and a trust score, deliberately
    > nothing locational. The design goal is proof of embodied existence, that an
    > identity moved in a way consistent with a living organism, not where it
    > went. So the honest worked example isn't "TRIP outputs NL."

Which claims from geographic result would a TRIP verifier be able to set?

    > It's that a
    > geographic Verifier working from the same signed H3 evidence could emit a
    > coarse jurisdiction in your format, and that result would carry basis =
    > evidence with TRIP as the method. The jurisdiction is derivable from the
    > quantized cells, it just isn't in TRIP's current certificate.

So, TRIP could generate Evidence that another Verifier could use?


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