measurement-map misnomer? (measurement/claim/assertion/property/proposition...?)

[deeglaze]

The measurement-map type is used for non-measurement claims, such as attesting environment topology and endorsements. Shall we rename measurement-map to claims-map, and measurement-values-map to claim-values-map ?

[deeglaze]

Let's determine in this issue which term we want to use for the logical propositions that are used by endorsements, reference values, and abstract verifier state.

[deeglaze]

To recap the discussion,

• "Measurement" is not particularly helpful given that endorsements can be about unmeasured properties, such as a certifying body's assignment of a "security level".
• "Claim" is not appropriate because while analogous to the JWT/CWT term, the general definition of key/value pair is in fact too general.
• "Assertion" is a candidate. It has precedent in the Asylo attestation terminology of assertions and their dual, conditions. It does have the unfortunate connotation of a program-crashing check.
• "Statement" is a candidate, but doesn't carry the logical connotation we want to convey.
• "Proposition" is a candidate, but might have too absolute of a connotation.
• "Property" is a candidate, but is overloaded with the JavaScript notion of "property". The distance from CoRIM->CWT->JWT->JavaScript might be too short to keep the terms from being too confusing during discussion.

However way we slice it there will be tradeoffs. I think the least offensive to folks' sensibilities given text proposed by everyone at some point is "Assertion". Let's make a final decision though.

[thomas-fossati]

I wouldn't rule out Claims: I see its generality as a feature rather than a bug. This would still be my preference.

Among the other proposals, I can live with Property or Assertion.