trustoverip / tswg-keri-specification

Key Event Receipt Infrastructure (KERI)

https://trustoverip.github.io/tswg-keri-specification/

Other

12 stars 12 forks source link

fix recipient aid references #183

Closed lenkan closed 2 months ago

lenkan commented 2 months ago

I believe there were some missing updates from this commit: https://github.com/trustoverip/tswg-keri-specification/commit/914f6e5c23c73dca916b6e058d4ce912b048816c

linux-foundation-easycla[bot] commented 2 months ago

:x: - login: @lenkan / name: Daniel Lenksjö . The commit (0871ba5c5bfded8bb3e66c2288f53cc8eca53f36) is not authorized under a signed CLA. Please click here to be authorized. For further assistance with EasyCLA, please submit a support request ticket.

daidoji commented 2 months ago

Yeah something weird happened here because I see Sam's fix on 1082 previous from that commit didn't make it either. Also there's a typo in https://trustoverip.github.io/tswg-keri-specification/#controller-aid-field A Receiver AID, ~i~ri field MAY appear in other places in messages. In those cases, its meaning SHOULD be determined by the context of its appearance

Also, I was going to push a PR but the "ri" field information is now very confusing because we have that quote with the typo saying "ri" MAY appear in that section, but then in the rest of the query messages we have that All are REQUIRED. No other top-level fields are allowed (MUST NOT appear) so its unclear how that field should be used.

199 to track.

SmithSamuelM commented 2 months ago

Fixed with #200

SmithSamuelM commented 2 months ago

Fixed with #200

daidoji commented 2 months ago

@SmithSamuelM that fixes the issue with my particular comment and I've updated my associated issue, but I think @lenkan's other changes are still needed from this PR. There's some ambiguity in how the ri field is used without the edits from his PR.

SmithSamuelM commented 2 months ago

I believe all the examples now include the "ri" field and the description of fields also. So I am not seeing that they are missing.

See https://github.com/trustoverip/tswg-keri-specification/pull/202

daidoji commented 2 months ago

@SmithSamuelM Roger on that PR. Actually, I see where the miscommunication arises. You're correct that ri does seem to exist in all the examples. In each section though there's a list of fields like The top-level fields of an Exchange, exn message body MUST appear in the following order: [ v, t, d, i, x, p, dt, r, q, a]. All are REQUIRED. No other top-level fields are allowed (MUST NOT appear).

The ri field is missing from all of these lists and the wording makes it seem like this field can't exist in any of those events. See #199.