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

Clarify proof section #1106

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 4, 2023
Merged

Clarify proof section #1106

merged 2 commits into from
May 4, 2023

Conversation

brentzundel
Copy link
Member

@brentzundel brentzundel commented Apr 27, 2023

This PR makes minor normative changes to the proof section.
It renames the section to indicate that the focus is on Securing VCs.
It rewords the introduction to focus on securing rather than proofs.
It clarifies the normative possibilities around the proof property to better reflect the way it is actually used.

fixes #1104


Preview | Diff

Signed-off-by: Brent Zundel <brent.zundel@gmail.com>
Copy link
Contributor

@decentralgabe decentralgabe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I like securing!

Copy link
Contributor

@selfissued selfissued left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is clearer than the text that it replaces.

Copy link
Member

@TallTed TallTed left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A small tweak. Otherwise, strongly in favor of this PR!

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@OR13 OR13 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Excellent PR.

Copy link
Contributor

@dlongley dlongley left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks! +1 to @TallTed's suggestion and I have one minor clarifying one of my own.

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Applying suggestions from @dlongley and @TallTed

Co-authored-by: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Comment on lines +1731 to +1732
Methods of securing <a>credentials</a> or <a>presentations</a> that embed a
proof in the data model MUST use the <code>proof</code> <a>property</a>.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm just noting a bit of concern on this item. I think it's a good call for v2.0 as long as future major revisions allow for possibly other fooProof properties that also secure the data model (in the event that proof is not flexible enough. I highly doubt that proof wouldn't be flexible enough, but just thought it worth mentioning before merging this PR. We don't want to block other embedded proofing mechanisms (forever) from existing and being used for VCs.

@msporny
Copy link
Member

msporny commented May 4, 2023

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

@msporny msporny merged commit a119a5d into w3c:main May 4, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Rewrite Proofs (Signatures) Section
7 participants