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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Clarify relationship bx securing mechanisms and media types #1107

Merged
merged 5 commits into from May 13, 2023
Merged

Clarify relationship bx securing mechanisms and media types #1107

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
413f988
attempt some clarity around the relationship between securing mechani…
brentzundel Apr 27, 2023
143705c
remove note about issue 1065
brentzundel Apr 27, 2023
0d5dbd9
modified in response to feedback
brentzundel Apr 28, 2023
e2f472b
Update index.html
brentzundel May 1, 2023
1e350e3
reword troublesome sentence
brentzundel May 4, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
15 changes: 8 additions & 7 deletions index.html
View file
Open in desktop
Expand Up @@ -3388,13 +3388,6 @@ <h3>Media Types</h3>
(or a shortened version) in the media type may or may not imply a proof. The
Working Group is seeking implementation experience related to the use of media
types and the expectation related to whether or not a particular media type
is expected to be secure with a particular proof.
</p>
<p class="issue" data-number="1065">
The VCWG is currently debating whether all media types that start with
`application/vc+` indicate an expectation around the securing mechanism or not.
Working Group is seeking implementation experience related to the use of media
types and the expectation related to whether or not a particular media type
is expected to be secure with a particular proof.
</p>
<p>
Expand All @@ -3404,6 +3397,14 @@ <h3>Media Types</h3>
those other syntaxes to be transformed to the `application/vc+ld+json`
media type.
</p>
<p>
The media type `application/vc+ld+json` does not imply any particular securing
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not sure this is true, it implies at least the possibility of DataIntegrityProof based on the current normative requirements regarding proof and @context.

#1091

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The language suggested in this PR is an attempt to clarify that in spite of the requirement to include a specific @context, and in spite of that @context containing references to a specific securing mechanism, no specific securing mechanism should be assumed. Just because the @context points to data integrity doesn't mean the data has been secured.

Happy for further suggestions on how to better communicate that here.

mechanism, but is intended to be used in conjunction with a securing mechanism.
A securing mechanism needs to be applied to enable verification of integrity.
This also applies to media types that allow for transformation into
`application/vc+ld+json`. Do not assume security of content regardless of the
media type used to communicate it.
</p>
</section>

<section>
Expand Down