[Rats] Verifier Input instead of Endorsement?

[Laurence Lundblade <[e-mail]>]

Stepping back a bit on the definition of an Endorsement, I think the four inputs to a Verifier are these:
  - Key material for verifying trust in the Attester
  - Known-good/Reference values for comparison with claims
  - Static implicit claims that are passed to RP's via Attestation Results
  - Appraisal Policy

These can and will be conveyed to the Verifier in many different ways:
  - X.509 certs with extensions
  - Signed documents
  - HTTP queries against the Attester/device manufacturer
  - Remote SQL or some other sort of database access to manufacturer(s)
  - Data storage like flash drives the are hand carried into the Verifier's site
  - One-time special file transfers
  - Ceremonial procedures with M out of N people physical present approving transfer

It seems like shoe-horning all of the above (except policy) into an Endorsement, like I’ve tried to do <https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/architecture/pull/94>  is too much. I tried this shoe-horning because I think the architecture document needs to cover all this and Endorsements was what was in it. A typical Endorsement seems to be just the first two mentioned, X.509 and signed documents expanding its definition to include database access is a stretch.

Rather than defining Endorsement, I’d like to define Verifier Input:

          *******************   ************     ****************
          * Manufacturer(s) *   * Verifier *     * Relying Party*
          *******************   *  Owner   *     *  Owner       *
                       |        ************     ****************
                       |              |                 |
         Verifier Input|              |                 |
                       |              |Appraisal        |
                       |              |Policy           |
                       |              |for              | Appraisal
                       |              |Evidence         | Policy for
                       |              |                 | Attestation
                       |              |                 |  Result
                       v              v                 |
                     .-----------------.                |
              .----->|     Verifier    |------.         |
              |      '-----------------'      |         |
              |                               |         |
              |                    Attestation|         |
              |                    Results    |         |
              | Evidence                      |         |
              |                               |         |
              |                               v         v
        .----------.                      .-----------------.
        | Attester |                      | Relying Party   |
        '----------'                      '————————‘



Endorsements must still be mentioned, but as one form of Verifier input just like EAT is one form of Attestation Evidence.

Verifier Input would be defined as:
  - Key material for verifying trust in the Attester
  - Known-good/Reference values for comparison with claims
  - Static implicit claims that are passed to RP's via Attestation Results

To do this, I’d replace the current PR <https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/architecture/pull/94> and issue <https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/architecture/issues/65> I have on Endorsements with a new PR. It will be a fair bit of work, so I want to see if there is some consensus first.

LL