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

Normative vs. non-normative references #53

Open
iherman opened this issue Sep 25, 2019 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@iherman
Copy link
Member

@iherman iherman commented Sep 25, 2019

There are some document references that are done in a normative section and have a normative reference role, although the target is currently just an IETF draft, a note of the CG, etc. It is not a problem now but may become when the document becomes a Rec (unless the target documents become standards by then). The ones I spotted (and there may be more):

  • Section 4.3 is normative, and defines the generic DID parameter name hl referring to the Hashlink spec (which is a draft)
  • Sections 4.3, 4.7, and 8 are normative, and normatively refer to the DID resolution document (which is a CG report)
  • Section 5.9 are normative and normatively refers to the Linked Data Proofs (which is a CG report; note that this reference also bypasses the references at the end of the document, which I am not sure is o.k.)
  • Section 7.1 refers to a DID registry, which is "a type of Verifiable Data Registry", referring to an informative section of the VC data model. Although the reference here is a MAY, so it may not be a normative one, but it may be better to make this somehow clearer.

I am also not sure how we should handle the registries (LD Cryptographic Suite Registry, DID method registry) listed in Appendix A. There are discussions at W3C on setting up a somewhat more controlled approach for such registries, and this may be at our disposal in the lifetime of this WG. Alternatively, we may want to publish them as WG notes, to give them somewhat more weight. Something to keep an eye on.

@msporny msporny added the editorial label Oct 1, 2019
@msporny

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@msporny msporny commented Oct 1, 2019

I am also not sure how we should handle the registries (LD Cryptographic Suite Registry, DID method registry) listed in Appendix A. There are discussions at W3C on setting up a somewhat more controlled approach for such registries, and this may be at our disposal in the lifetime of this WG. Alternatively, we may want to publish them as WG notes, to give them somewhat more weight. Something to keep an eye on.

@iherman, can you split the above out into a separate issue, please? That one needs discussion by the group, but the other stuff you mention is purely editorial.

@iherman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

@iherman iherman commented Oct 1, 2019

@msporny, right, I should have known better. I have created #58 for the registry handling problem.

@msporny msporny self-assigned this Oct 10, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.