Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

First PR, added DNS/RDAP and other content #52

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jacqueslatour
Copy link

Added DNS and RDAP.

Copy link
Contributor

@andorsk andorsk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am wondering if perhaps we need to start thinking about how the TRQP expands out to N protocols outside of HTTP, and restructure the document to support it better.

I'm almost thinking it makes better sense to have the following:

  1. Base Abstraction
  2. Restful
  3. RDAP
  4. DNS

We can structure the repo as the following:

core.md
  \_supported_protocols
     \_restful.md
     \_dns.md
     \_rdap.md

with some structure around each protocol. Thoughts?

The Trust Registry Quert Protocol (TRQP) serves to provide a simple suite of adapted interfaces to enable querying of systems of record that provide the information that drives a trust registry. There are a plethora of systems that contain answers that are required to make trust decisions. The protocol is intended to make the communication with any particular system-of-record consistent and simple.

::: todo
**we should explain the "systems of record" content at high level**
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe even before this, define what the minimum requirements of a "record" is, at a model level.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"record" or "system of record"?


It is intentionally simple to allow rapid integration into external systems.

The TRQP can:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
The TRQP can:
The TRQP currently has definitions supporting the query of a Trust Registry via the following methods:

@@ -60,6 +68,7 @@ https://github.com/trustoverip/tswg-trust-registry-protocol/issues/6
[[def: trustworthiness]]
~ An attribute of a person or organization that provides confidence to others of the qualifications, capabilities, and reliability of that entity to perform specific tasks and fulfill assigned responsibilities. Trustworthiness is also a characteristic of information technology products and systems (see Section 2.6.2 on trustworthiness of information systems). The attribute of trustworthiness, whether applied to people, processes, or technologies, can be measured, at least in relative terms if not quantitatively.48 The determination of trustworthiness plays a key role in establishing trust relationships among persons and organizations. The trust relationships are key factors in risk decisions made by senior leaders/executives. NOTE: Current state-of-the-practice for measuring trustworthiness can reliably differentiate between widely different levels of trustworthiness and is capable of producing a trustworthiness scale that is hierarchical between similar instances of measuring activities (e.g., the results from ISO/IEC 15408 [Common Criteria] evaluations). (source: [NIST Special Publication 800-39](https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-39.pdf) p.24)

** should be more specific to trust registries, in that the trustworthiness of a TR should be based on the human interpreration and value of the governance body, it's governing autority and its framework.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

?? this feels out of place here unless this is meant as a comment?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants