search

w3c / vc-data-integrity

W3C Data Integrity Specification
https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-integrity/
Other
40 stars 18 forks source link

Ensure exposition text on relationship to VCs mentions checking verification relationship against proof purpose #229

Closed dlongley closed 2 months ago

dlongley commented 8 months ago

This may be obvious to some implementers, but we should make this more clear. This section:

https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-integrity/#relationship-to-verifiable-credentials

There are some use cases where it is important to ensure that the verification method used in a proof is associated with the issuer in a verifiable credential, or the holder in a verifiable presentation, during the process of validation. One way to check for such an association is to ensure that the value of the controller property of a proof's verification method matches the URL value used to identify the issuer or holder, respectively. This particular association indicates that the issuer or holder, respectively, is the controller of the verification method used to verify the proof.

Should include the text: "...respectively, and that the verification method is expressed under a verification relationship that is acceptable given the proof's purpose."

EDIT: The above suggestion would replace the first "respectively" in the above text. Other text that achieves the same goal in a PR might also be acceptable to resolve this issue.

TallTed commented 8 months ago

I imagine a PR will make this plain, but I (and probably other readers) cannot yet be certain where you mean for the inclusion to be inserted. Possibly replacing the respectively. in the penultimate sentence?

dlongley commented 8 months ago

@TallTed,

Yes, sorry, that's what I meant (replacing the first "respectively" with the above suggestion) -- but, yes, a PR will make clear what the chosen text will be.

TallTed commented 8 months ago

(@dlongley — One big reason I needed to ask is that there are two instances of respectively in the quoted passage — respectively. This and respectively, is. I believe it's the first instance that you're replacing.)

dlongley commented 8 months ago

Yes, I've updated my comments to indicate that, thanks!

msporny commented 2 months ago

PR #273 has been raised to address this issue. This issue will be closed once PR #273 has been merged.

msporny commented 2 months ago

PR #273 has been merged, closing.