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

Chris,

I think the relying party replaces the Inspector, not the
Holder/Presenter/Claimant.
The relying party relies upon the verifiability of the claims presented.
-j


On Mon, Jun 26, 2017, at 07:22 PM, Christopher Allen wrote:
> 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
> 
> 

--
Joe Andrieu, PMP
joe@joeandrieu.com
+1(805)705-8651
http://blog.joeandrieu.com