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

Fix editorial issues with Level of Assurance section. #752

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 30, 2021
Merged

Conversation

msporny
Copy link
Member

@msporny msporny commented May 24, 2021

Partial editorial cleanup to appendices tracked as issue #728.


Preview | Diff

@msporny msporny added cr-comment editorial Editors should update the spec then close labels May 24, 2021
Copy link
Contributor

@awoie awoie left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

might need to be expressed and provided to a <em>verifier</em>. Whether and how
to encode this information in the <a>DID document</a> data model is out of scope
for this specification. Interested readers might note that 1) the information
could be transmitted using Verifiable Credentials [[?VC-DATA-MODEL]], and 2) the
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Doesn't seem to me that the VC data model reference be informative here

Suggested change
could be transmitted using Verifiable Credentials [[?VC-DATA-MODEL]], and 2) the
could be transmitted using Verifiable Credentials [[VC-DATA-MODEL]], and 2) the

Copy link
Member Author

@msporny msporny May 30, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The DID specification currently has no normative dependency on the Verifiable Credentials specification (and this could create one -- which could be argued as a normative change to the specification). ReSpec will also throw a warning if we make a normative reference in an informative section, which this is.

For those reasons, I'm rejecting the change request.

@msporny
Copy link
Member Author

msporny commented May 30, 2021

Editorial, multiple reviews, change requested but rejected due to normative nature, no objections, merging.

@msporny msporny merged commit 0918087 into main May 30, 2021
@msporny msporny deleted the msporny-sc-loa branch July 11, 2021 19:12
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
editorial Editors should update the spec then close
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants