Re: [Drip] Update on RATS in DIME

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

On 8/5/22 00:36, Adam Wiethuechter wrote:
> This is something I think I forgot to mention during the DRIP WG 
> meeting at 114 and figured get it down in writing and maybe reignite 
> some discussion here on the list.
>
> For those out of the loop seeing we are removing the term "registrar" 
> and replacing it with DRIP Identity Management Entity (DIME). This is 
> a high-level entity name in the registration process that has multiple 
> logical components.
>
> During the 114 Hackathon we had a very good discussion with Dave 
> Thaler and Henk Birkholz about some high-level usage of RATS in the 
> DRIP registration process which was being further nailed down.
>
> Dave gave a very quick but good explanation of RATS, the entities, 
> artifacts and two primary models: Passport and Background-Check.
>
> All at the table (myself, Dave, Henk, Tim Mesker, Frank Cona, Michael 
> Palage, and Stu Card) agreed that RATS could easily fit into the 
> architecture but required that the terminology we are using in DRIP 
> may need to be realigned for better understanding. We agreed that the 
> Background-Check model was more in line with the current registration 
> process and directly aligned roles drafted to easily take on RATS roles.

And I was there for part of it to get what I had to change in drip-rid!  :)

> With arch-26 the original terms of Assertion and Attestation were 
> reformed to align with RATS and are now Evidence and Endorsement, 
> respectively. Both, along with Claims, use RATS Arch. definitions as 
> their foundation.

Everyone, please review drip-rid-32 that my terminology reworking is in 
line with this approach.

>
> With the proposed DRIP registration draft rework (a dry run incoming 
> in the next week) a supplemental document to define how RATS fit 
> within the DIME process could easily be made. Effectively in a RATS 
> model of a DIME the existing Attestations we are using during the 
> process (now called Endorsements) would be sent in the messages for 
> RATS interactions and processed and the appropriate logical entity in 
> the path.
>
> Is there any strong opposition to this way of doing things if RATS 
> were a supplemental way of performing registration?

I agree with this change.  It also allows us to better generalize the 
registration and HHITs for other uses.

Bob

>
> --------
> 73,
> Adam T. Wiethuechter
> Software Engineer; AX Enterprize, LLC
>