Re: [Rats] Call for adoption (after draft rename) for Yang module draft

[Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>]

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.



> 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”.



> 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.



Dave