[Rats] What's to EAT?

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

On 2019-11-12 12:19 p.m., Dave Thaler wrote:
>
> Ned Smith wrote:
>
> > So far the group has used the term "EAT" to refer to both the
> information model and data serialization expressions.
>
>  
>
> I would rather see the term EAT (and any other terms ending in Token,
> like JWT and CWT) only be used to refer to
>
> data serialization expressions, not the information model.
>
I concur.
I'm completely perplexed by that thread about "Call for adoption", so
I've changed the subject line, and started a new thread. 


> > When extending information model to YANG or some other serialization
> (e.g. ASN.1). Given the possibility for an IM
>
> > expression to be realized by different serializations, what term
> should we give to the IM description?
>
>  
>
> That’s a fine question, and I don’t have any strong preference right
> now, other than to not use the same term as something else.
>
> Offhand, my preference would be to not define a term, and just use
> Evidence and Attestation Result as the terms for
>
> format-independent discussion.  I think it is useful to distinguish
> between Evidence vs Attestation Results in many cases.
>
> And if you need to refer to both, then we can always use both
> together, such as “Evidence and Attestation Results”.
>

+1

>  
>
> > The term "Claim" has been used extensively. Do we want to agree to
> use "claim" to refer to anything that is an IM
> > expression in RATS and "Token" for any serialization (realization)
> even if it isn't a JWT or CWT? 
>
>  
>
> I would say no. To me, a claim is one particular piece of information,
> where a “Token” or whatever else has a set of claims.
>
>  
>

I mostly agree.

I think that it's okay to say, "The uptime claim is forwarded to the
Flu-Flu Processor" rather than saying "The Token containing the uptime
claim is forwarded to the Flu-Flu Processor"