Closed jonnycrunch closed 3 years ago
@jonnycrunch did you use a different github persona than the one you registered with the WG? Otherwise I don't know why this PR wasn't accepted.
I will set this as editorial, which will release the lock, but you should check, please. Thx
@jonnycrunch, I'm confused by this PR. The text was already moved back in this commit: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/commit/5b7c489e3231a3e31171c7f40c71973c197a612f which was announced to the WG here: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-did-wg/2021Jan/0002.html
Is there some difference between the text in the spec and what you're proposing in the PR?
@jonnycrunch I believe the changes you are recommending here have already been made.
@brentzundel wrote:
@jonnycrunch I believe the changes you are recommending here have already been made.
I checked a few days ago and checked again today per @jricher's request -- the changes in this PR were merged into the specification before this PR was raised. I did a line-by-line comparison.
There are wording differences due to a refactoring of language that @peacekeeper applied to the spec wrt. ADM entry keys, etc. This PR undoes some of those changes. The group also discussed this PR during the special topic call today and decided to close it.
For those reasons, this PR is marked pending close and will be closed in 7 days or when @jonnycrunch confirms that we can close this PR, whichever event happens sooner.
This PR is marked pending close and will be closed in 7 days or when @jonnycrunch confirms that we can close this PR, whichever event happens sooner.
7 days have elapsed since the 'pending close' tag was added with no response from @jonnycrunch, closing.
This PR undoes the
editorial
changes to get us back on having the discussion regarding Deterministically Encoded CBOR back to the conversations.The language builds on the updated CBOR spec RFC #8949
Preview | Diff