[Drip] Update on RATS in DIME

[Adam Wiethuechter <[e-mail]>]

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