Re: [Rats] Entity vs. role

["Eric Voit (evoit)" <[e-mail]>]

From: Laurence Lundblade, March 23, 2022 4:03 AM



On Mar 22, 2022, at 10:37 PM, Eric Voit (evoit) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

 

Yes, we can depict it like that conceptually, but in reality it could be one big machine learning engine or similar where you can’t separate it (you could even put unverified measurements in AR so they can be fed into a machine learning engine).

 

<eric> Ar4si uses the term "AR-Augmented Evidence" to show what flows into the unified Verifier + Relying Party roles.  Ar4si makes no assertions on what the full set of Evidence might include.

 

And RATS architecture doesn’t care about what’s in AP for AR and shouldn’t care about it. We’re only mentioning AP for AR for the sake of completeness. We’re not going to put any requirements on it or say anything more about it than it exists, right? Hope that right. 

 

<eric> The RATS architecture doesn't name specific objects.  But where AR flows between devices (e.g., in the passport model), this WG needs to understand how reusable Verifier generated objects/definitions might be consumed.  I.e., the ultimate consumer of RATS is the RP.

 

Eric

 

Yes, went backed and looked at your slides again. Makes sense. Definitely a use case to support.

 

When talking in terms of roles, I definitely think that Verifier B is just co-located with the RP, not part of the RP.

 

I’m not sure if we should consider Verifier A + Verifier B a composite Verifier or not. In my comments above I clearly asserted that all the verifiers (in a composite verifier) must have run before there is any AR. By that criteria it is definitely not, but maybe that definition is too strict? 

 

<eric>  There is no term "Composite Verifier" in the architecture.  And if there was, I wouldn't consider Verifier A + Verifier B composite because: 

* Verifier A will often not even know about Verifier B.

* Verifier A & Verifier B will often be managed by different organizations.

 

I’m also not sure what we should call the intermediate results between Verifier in a composite verifier. By my criteria above it can’t be AR-Augmented Evidence, but again, maybe that criteria is too strict.

 

<eric> Verifier A does not know that it is creating "intermediate results".  It is delivering exactly the evaluation promised.  This is why what is coming from the Verifier A must be known as Attestation Results.  

 

It is up to the end-to-end use case as understood by the Verifier B + RP to determine how to handle the full set of Evidence receives.

 

Ironic in a way — I want to forward/passthrough Evidence in Results, you are forwarding/passingthrough Results in Evidence :-)

 

<eric> It is not me that puts Results in Evidence.  It is the definitions in the architecture document which requires it *must* be specified this way.

 

Others should chime in on whether they agree with my interpretation of the architecture document.  To me it is perfectly clear.

 

Eric

 

LL