Re: [Drip] Update on RATS in DIME

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

I think the Background-Check model supports initially _registering_ a DRIP
Entity Tag (DET) / Hierarchical Host Entity Tag (HHIT), where the DRIP
Entity Management Agent (DIME) may need to rely on some Evidence /
Endorsements by other entities.

I think the Passport model supports an entity (typically a UA) later
_using_ a DET/HHIT along with Endorsements signed by the DIME.

OTOH it has been almost 2 weeks since the hackathon and my recollection of
Dave Thalers flip charts mapping DRIP entities & interactions onto RATS may
be wrong.

Generally I believe normalizing DRIP terminology at least and processes at
best to leverage RATS will help our smaller WG take advantage of work by a
larger WG that addresses some common needs and has undergone more extensive
review.

Thanks Adam!

On Fri, Aug 5, 2022, 00:36 Adam Wiethuechter <
[e-mail]> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> --------
> 73,
> Adam T. Wiethuechter
> Software Engineer; AX Enterprize, LLC
> --
> Tm-rid mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid
>