more detailed privacy considerations #244
Conversation
Sakurann
requested review from
awoie,
bc-pi,
c2bo,
danielfett,
decentralgabe,
jogu,
paulbastian,
peppelinux,
selfissued,
tlodderstedt and
tplooker
selfissued
left a comment
selfissued
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Approved, pending my suggestions being accepted.
Co-authored-by: Michael B. Jones <michael_b_jones@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Joseph Heenan <joseph@heenan.me.uk>
Co-authored-by: Joseph Heenan <joseph@heenan.me.uk>
bc-pi
left a comment
bc-pi
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Two minor nits on the latest text that I assume will be incorporated so approving.
jogu
left a comment
jogu
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me! I agree with Brian's suggestions, and also suggested a few trivial grammar improvements.
|
The line breaks are somehow weird for this PR? Shouldn't for example
be in one line like this?
|
The markdown has been wrapped, which is inconsistent with the rest of the spec - albeit that doesn't make any difference to the generated HTML. |
The practice of putting an entire paragraph into a single source line results in MANY unnecessary merge conflicts. I support putting each sentence or long phrase into its own line - at least as we add new text. That said, line breaks should be at the end of sentences and/or complete clauses so that odd line breaks don't make it hard to search for multiple-word terms such as "authorization server". |
peppelinux
left a comment
peppelinux
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Approved considering Brian's suggestions taken into consideration
c2bo
left a comment
c2bo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with the suggestions of joseph & brian. Looks good to me apart from those minor changes
Co-authored-by: Brian Campbell <71398439+bc-pi@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Joseph Heenan <joseph@heenan.me.uk> Co-authored-by: Christian Bormann <8774236+c2bo@users.noreply.github.com>
| The Credential Issuer should obtain the End-User's consent before issuing Credential(s) | ||
| to the Wallet. It should be made clear to the End-User what information is being included in the | ||
| Credential(s) and for what purpose. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why lower-case should here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It used to be a MUST, we had a passionate discussion during the WG call based on a comment here and there were concerns with having a normative statements regarding consent.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should all shoulds in this text be upper case SHOULD?
tplooker
left a comment
tplooker
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Minor nits but in general big supporter of this PR, thanks!
Co-authored-by: Joseph Heenan <joseph@heenan.me.uk>
More detailed and thorough Privacy Considerations section for ID-1 inspired by implementation experience and a lot of related specifications. Not perfect, but should be good enough to convey how serious we are about privacy.
intended to replace #187.