Re: [Rats] Call for adoption (after draft rename) for Yang module draft

[Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>]

One reason for this - and I tried to express that carefully - is that 
just using the word "token" could be very confusing. We are using 
"Claim" as a synonym to "Assertion" at the moment. Outside of the IETF 
that makes a lot of sense. Inside the IETF, we still have to be a bit 
careful here, as "Claim" is well defined in Web Tokens - and it is a 
data model term (basically: a specific key value representation).

An EAT is a CWT (or JWT, not the point). So both are Claim sets that 
compose tokens. The architecture is intended to be representation (I am 
using this term to dance around the sanity rending 
serialization/encoding words, and to spare Rich some of the pain) 
agnostic. Claims in the architecture are therefore representation 
agnostic, too. Claims in tokens - by RFC definition - are not.

I am not a super big fan of this compromise, but it found consensus, 
removed a blocker, and we were able to progress.

Viele Grüße,

Henk

On 13.11.19 12:14, Schönwälder, Jürgen wrote:
> While there is a lot of talk here about different kinds of "token"
> recently, I note that this term is not defined in
> draft-birkholz-rats-architecture-03.txt nor in
> draft-thaler-rats-architecture-01.txt.