Re: [Rats] RATS use cases review

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > I took a careful read of the use cases document. I notices that
    > Sections 5.1 - 5.6.2 each are variations on the themes of attesting to
    > a device's:

...

    > In this light, the right approach is to organize the document around
    > the information that is being attested (the above list, plus end-user
    > information (section 5.6.3), geographic attestation (section 5.7), and
    > connectivity attestation (section 5.8)), with perhaps additional
    > information on how these types of attestation can be combined in
    > support of things like, say, critical infrastructure security, etc.

    > What does the work group think?

This thread didn't go very far, unfortunately.
I've spent quite a few hours since thinking about your suggestion.
In many ways, the Thursday morning side-meeting went in the other direction,
providing new situations which differed from existing use cases only in the
severity.

As I explain in another email, I have added a set of attributes to each use
case, being;
       - Who will use it:
       - Attestation type: (passport or background check)
       - Attesting Party
       - Relying Party
       - Claims used
       
The claims used are all TBD at this point.

As I said at the meeting in March, I don't want to do ontology up-front, but
rather to just collect all sorts of things, even if they seem to overlap.
Some of Guy's suggestions (in a PDF he sent me) also related to refactoring
some use cases, and while I actually agree with his suggestion, I still want
to avoid that.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [