Added an expiration property

[iherman]

Releated to the issues and comments in #92 (comment): the expires property was present in the DI version of the verification methods, and remained commented out in the controller spec. This is probably a property to be re-instated.

Note that the current text (which I took by removing some comment lines) is identical to revoked. What differentiates these two? Per the spec, nothing...

A separate PR will be raised on the DI Vocabulary to make this valid.

---

Preview | Diff

[longpd]

Good catch Ivan. Approve this change.

[iherman]

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2024-09-11

• no resolutions were taken

View the transcript

4.1. Added an expiration property (pr controller-document#96)

See github pull request controller-document#96.

Brent Zundel: ivan, you have raised this PR, has been open for 4 hours, talk us through the changes.

Ivan Herman: dlongley updated the context file which I put in another PR, by looking at that I realized that with all the changes, the expire property is not mentioned as a potential property for verification methods, I believe it was in DI origin but got commented out in controller document, I believe that is a transition bug, I removed the comments to put it back.
… two comments, if this gets accepted I will have to make some changes in the vocabulary, and also the text that is there, which I did not write, is the same as for another property.
… I understand the difference between the two but the specification should make it clearer.

Manu Sporny: +1 to the PR, the differences are: expires is set before the thing expires as just a window, the revoked thing is that you must pay attention to revoked as the key was deactivated on a certain date for a very specific reason, while you should pay attention to expires.

Ivan Herman: I will modify the PR to make that difference clear and we can come back to it.

Michael Jones: the history of that comment and similar comments is that when I was sorting out what was common between controller document section in vc-jose-cose and that section in DI, anything that was not in both I put in comments, only put in stuff from both documents.

[iherman]

Per the discussion on the meeting (see https://www.w3.org/2017/vc/WG/Meetings/Minutes/2024-09-11-vcwg#section4-1) I have modified the text, saying that after the 'revoked' date the key MUST NOT be used.

@msporny did I understand well what you said yesterday? Reviewers, please consider this in your final opinion.

[iherman]

@msporny any reason why not merge this, too?

[msporny]

Normative, multiple reviews, no changes requested, no objections, merging.