W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vc-wg@w3.org > June 2017

Relying Part & Last Two Lines of Playground [was: Re: Terminology poll]

From: Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@blockstream.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:22:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+HTxFc8pq4dvpW3ifPFtGePz4zDkYCR_ZZ=UunDwBWSHLhWjA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Andrieu <joe@joeandrieu.com>
Cc: Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>, "Verifiable Claims Working Group (Public List)" <public-vc-wg@w3.org>
I was thinking about Drummond’s comment elsewhere about the rest of the
world seeming to settle in on Relying Party, and tried it manually with the
playground text:

A *Subject* is referred to by an *Identifier*.

A(n) *Issuer* issues *Claims* about *Subjects* using *Identifiers*.

*Claims* are stored in an online or offline *Repository*.

A(n) *Relying Party* may present *Claims* directly to a *Verifier*. For
example, providing a digital driver’s license directly to a *Verifier*.

A(n) *Relying Party* may present *Claims* indirectly to a *Verifier*. For
example, authorizing a *Verifier* to retrieve a digital driver’s license on
an as-needed basis from *Repository*.

A(n) *Verifier* retrieves *Claims* either directly from the *Relying Party* or
indirectly from a *Repository*.

A(n) *Verifier* verifies that the *Claims* represent statements made by the
original *Issuer*.

*Verifier* verifies that *Relying Party* is either the *Subject* of the
*Claim* or is entitled to represent the *Subject* of the *Claims*.

*Relying Party* is typically the *Subject* of *Claims*. In some
circumstances, where the *Relying Party* is not the *Subject*of the *Claim*,
then the *Relying Part* must be able to prove that he/she is authorized to
provide the *Claims*.


It works until the last two lines, because in world’s outside of
self-sovereign identity, the Relying Party “is entitled to represent the
*Subject*” and the Relying Party ISN’T “typically the *Subject* of *Claims*"

This says that there may be something broken in our last sentences, rather
than it being the words.

Here I’ve tried to fix the last two lines so that they work with Relying
Party, and ended up just modifying the first and deleting the second as it
became redundant.

*Verifier* verifies that *Relying Party* is either the *Subject* of the
*Claim* or is *authorized **to present *the *Claims to the Verifier.*

To see if that new sentence worked with other words, I get:

A *Subject* is referred to by an *Identifier*.

A(n) *Issuer* issues *Claims* about *Subjects* using *Identifiers*.

*Claims* are stored in an online or offline *Repository*.

A(n) *Holder* may present *Claims* directly to a *Inspector*. For example,
providing a digital driver’s license directly to a *Inspector*.

A(n) *Holder* may present *Claims* indirectly to a *Inspector*. For
example, authorizing a *Inspector* to retrieve a digital driver’s license
on an as-needed basis from *Repository*.

A(n) *Inspector* retrieves *Claims* either directly from the *Holder* or
indirectly from a *Repository*.

A(n) *Inspector* verifies that the *Claims* represent statements made by
the original *Issuer*.

*Inspector* verifies that *Holder* is either the *Subject* of the *Claim* or
is *authorized **to present *the *Claims to the Inspector.*

This also works.

I suggest we modify the second last sentence and delete the last.


— Christopher Allen
Received on Monday, 26 June 2017 23:24:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 26 June 2017 23:24:02 UTC