-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
fix: term expansion alignment #22
fix: term expansion alignment #22
Conversation
99e6b07
to
ced95e8
Compare
@@ -24,8 +24,8 @@ | |||
"@id":"ex:issuerDIDDoc", | |||
"@type":"DIDDoc" | |||
}, | |||
"rpDIDDoc":{ | |||
"@id":"ex:rpDIDDoc", | |||
"relyingPartyDIDDoc":{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As this authorization credential is not coupled to OIDC, we might want to use the DID core spec language:
requestingParty
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd say we align ourselves with UMA (where it's also "requestingParty")
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agree.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@troyronda changed to requestingPartyDID
but thinking about this has resurfaced old thoughts and ideas that you and I may have discussed - I opened several issues: #23, #24, #25
Signed-off-by: George Aristy <george.aristy@securekey.com>
ced95e8
to
35f0305
Compare
Expanding
rpDIDDoc
->relyingPartyDIDDoc
to align with the other terms.Signed-off-by: George Aristy george.aristy@securekey.com