Re: [Drip] terminology: certificates & claims

["Card, Stu" <[e-mail]>]

I hate to chime in agreeing that anyone (myself or another) should do
additional work, but if you have the cycles, it should be a useful
reference for authors and editors.


On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 12:02 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Henk,
>
> Totally agree the matrix needs to be extended.  My original choice was
> based upon some of the internal discussion within the medical community. I
> just found out that the matrix helped steer the discussion and provided a
> nice internal document for the engineers that were focused on standards and
> the lawyers that were focused on national laws.
>
> If others see potential benefit, I would be open to adding a RFC4949
> column and a DRIPs column.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 11:58 AM
> To: [e-mail]; 'Michael Richardson' <[e-mail]>;
> 'Stuart W. Card' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Drip] terminology: certificates & claims
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> a very preliminary observation:
>
> This table could definitely use an RFC4949 (or IETF, but that is way more
> effort) column.
>
> Viele Grüße,
>
> Henk
>
> p.s. as a hint - Claim, Relying Party, and Verifier are used extensively
> in the RATS WG:
>
>
>
> On 28.10.20 16:50, [e-mail] wrote:
> > Hello All,
> >
> > Attached is a document that I created in connection with some identity
> work that I have been doing in the medical space. I created it because
> there was confusion about certain definitional terms across different
> standards and frameworks between the lawyers and the engineers.  I find
> this matrix is an interesting cheat sheet to make sure that everyone is
> operating from a common definitional framework.
> >
> > If the group finds any value I could expand the matrix to include some
> of the DRIP definitional terms.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tm-rid <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 6:57 AM
> > To: Stuart W. Card <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Drip] terminology: certificates & claims
> >
> >
> > Stuart W. Card <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >      > (3) Certificates consist of one or more claims, plus some
> evidence supporting
> >      > those claims, typically a signature of a trusted [third] party
> attesting to
> >      > the truth of the claims.
> >
> > What Carsten and Henk said.
> > I haven't seen
> >    "evidence supporting those claims"
> >
> > in any actual (PKIX) certificates.  The point of the third party is
> usually that it provides the service of evaluating the evidence, and this
> has, until
> > RFC8555 (ACME) been completely non-standard as to process.
> >
> >      > Carsten? Michael? Anyone? Thanks!
> >
> > Remember that it works best if you say our name three times in front of
> the bathroom mirror.  :-)
> >
> > --
> > Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT
> consulting )
> >             Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>