Editorial pass, part 1: items that need discussion

[kimdhamilton]

This is the first batch of items from my editorial pass that we should discuss before fixing, as they may imply a change in scope, but are really intended to clarify for audiences that are less familiar with the context of this spec.

I'll submit any straightforward editorial fixes as PRs, but open issues like this on anything that likely needs discussion

@csuwildcat @brentzundel we can discuss on next Thursday's call if no feedback before then.

Line no	Type	Suggestion
51	Clarification	"any other ^JSON^ claim format"
56	Editorial; make more achievable	"nullify the redundant handling, code, and hassle" -> "enable unified procedures and code, thereby reducing redundancy"
84	Clarification	DID (and VC definitions) do not link to w3c specs. This is likely intentional but could be confusing as the audience will have a mix of understanding of the specs / context. Should we refer to the specs as informative? Do we need to clarify definitions are broader?
137, 187	Clarification	"Presentation Definitions are objects that articulate what proofs a Verifier requires." > "...what ^claims/credentials^ and proofs"

2 other concerns:

• We might need more test suite coverage, e.g., of the input descriptors corner cases. I have some tests I could add
• Topics around "proof of identifier control" might benefit from a pass from Tom Jones

[awoie]

Could we provide an end-to-end example? Currently, I don't find an example for a PE submission + VP that matches a PE definition. Perhaps I'm missing something?

[awoie]

Also, could we provide request and response examples in the appendix in the same section? Currently, I have to scroll through the entire doc to go from request (PE definition) to response (PE submission + VP).

[kimdhamilton]

Discussion 9/2:

• 51 agreed
• 56 agreed
• 84 agreed, plus consider case-by-case where/how things are used
  • search "ref:"
• yes to test suite
• "proof of id control": => maybe just add clarification "here's how we define"

[kimdhamilton]

In addition to the changes in #252, I reviewed the "proof of identifier control" section and think no additional changes are needed. The scope mentioned by Brent I think is sufficiently clear (i.e. it's how we define these concepts)

[kimdhamilton]

addressed with #253 and other issuers broken out