Re: [Rats] Same claim in Evidence and Results (was Re: Second attempt at early allocation of CWT Labels (PR #152))

["Smith, Ned" <[e-mail]>]

I asked for clarification about what attestation roles' perspectives were assumed when describing the various claims. This was because there is language that suggests Endorser / RVP roles were considered. There is language that suggests RP, Verifier and Attester roles are considered too. But it isn't clear that all roles are considered for all claims. 

I suggested that if the goal was not to consider all roles for all claims, that the claims be described based on a least common denominator assumption. That is, only wording that is true for all roles would be included. It is a bit of a trick question in that you have to consider all roles in order to know what attributes will be common. It also means anything that is specific to a role or nuanced would not be included so as to avoid special case descriptions. 
 
That means, terminology that is aimed at manufacturers, relying party, verifier, attester should be removed or clearly identified as informative. My guess is the result will be that the CDDL most closely captures normative expression and most everything else is informative. 

On 2/22/22, 11:51 AM, "Laurence Lundblade" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Absolutely do not want to expand the EAT doc to cover Endorsement and Reference Values in any way, but maybe another draft might make use of some stuff that is in EAT.

    Ned suggested it, not me. :-)

    LL


    > On Feb 22, 2022, at 11:19 AM, Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > 
    > You are kidding, right?
    > 
    > On 22.02.22 20:12, Smith, Ned wrote:
    >> Maybe that’s a good idea. Maybe it’s not. Not sure yet. :-)