Verifier terminology for internal representations of claims

[nedmsmith]

PR #107 makes heavy use of terminology that assumes CBOR encoded internal representations. However, it isn't the intention of this draft to mandate a particular internal representation. The terminology should reflect this non-goal.

Line 1520 is an example as it uses "CBOR encoded values" to refer to measurements in an internal representation that are in big-endian word order (which is prescribed by CBOR encoders).

If an implementation discards CBOR encoding artifacts as part of a mapping to an internal representation. The language describing Verifier behavior should be sensitive to this possibility. For example, line 1520 could change from: "using binary comparison of their CBOR encoded values." to "using an internal representation that supports binary comparison of keys and values."

[andrew-draper]

The intention of that text is to say that the environment-map comparison compares the objects for equality. Comparing this using binary comparison of the CBOC encoding is the simplest and fastest way to do this. The CoRIM author knows what the encoding of the evidence is and can adjust the encoding of the Reference Value to exactly match this.
If there is a better way to describe this then please send amended text.

[nedmsmith]

"The environment-map comparison compares the objects for equality. The Verifier may translate an encoded form of the environment-map to an internal representation to facilitate binary compatible comparisons. The internal representation may be an encoding format, such as CBOR. The internal representation MUST ensure byte order, ASCII representation, array representation etc... are consistent across Evidence, Reference Values, and Endorsements regardless of origin encodings."

[nedmsmith]

Existing text explains that internal representation is exemplary. This is sufficient to close this issue.