Note that integrity protecting JSON-LD Contexts are allowed.

[msporny]

This PR is a partial fix for an issue raised in w3c/vc-data-integrity#272 by noting that specification authors may require that JSON-LD Contexts are integrity protected by using the relatedResource feature.

---

Preview | Diff

[iherman]

(This is just an editorial thing, take it or leave it.)

The term "specification authors" stopped me for a moment. I looked at the text overall, and this term is usually used making it clear what these people really define (new securing mechanism, etc). But the general term is not defined.

I presume that we are talking here about people authoring a new context file related to their applications. Maybe it is better to say "Specification authors who...", or simply replace the term by "Authors of new context files...".

[dlongley]

Adding back my suggestions from my other review that happened at the same time as accepting another suggestion.

[dlongley]

I think what this is about is ecosystems that want to provide their own special profiling rules (but also look below at the other option):

Suggested change

	Authors of JSON-LD Contexts MAY require that those context files be integrity
	protected by using the `relatedResource` feature described in Section
	[[[#integrity-of-related-resources]]] or an equivalent mechanism.
	Profiles of this specification MAY require that JSON-LD Contexts are integrity
	protected by using the `relatedResource` feature described in Section
	[[[#integrity-of-related-resources]]], or an equivalent mechanism.

[dlongley]

Alternatively, for language that is more verbose but more similar to what is in the controller document:

Suggested change

	Authors of JSON-LD Contexts MAY require that those context files be integrity
	protected by using the `relatedResource` feature described in Section
	[[[#integrity-of-related-resources]]] or an equivalent mechanism.
	Other specifications that profile this specification MAY require that JSON-LD
	Contexts are integrity protected by using the `relatedResource` feature
	described in Section [[[#integrity-of-related-resources]]], or an equivalent
	mechanism.

[msporny]

I was messing with merge conflicts and had to force push a change, which disconnected your change requests from the PR. Can you make the change suggestions again, please?

[msporny]

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