Update section 5.2 (Trust Model) due to comments from Jeffrey Yasskin

[David-Chadwick]

This PR is an attempt to partially address issue #1348 by fixing editorial concerns that @jyasskin raised. The other issues are being addressed in PR #1464.

5.2 Trust Model

• [x] Wordsmith statements to say is that the verifier trusts the issuer to make the statements it's making after verification has been performed.
• [x] Elaborate on why entities trust/depend on verifiable data registry.
• [x] Explain why holder trusts the issuer.
• [x] Say something about the verifier choosing the issuers they want to trust.

---

:boom: Error: 429 Too Many Requests :boom:

PR Preview failed to build. (Last tried on May 8, 2024, 6:07 PM UTC).

More

PR Preview relies on a number of web services to run. There seems to be an issue with the following one: :rotating_light: [HTML Diff Service](http://services.w3.org/htmldiff) - The HTML Diff Service is used to create HTML diffs of the spec changes suggested in a pull request. :link: [Related URL]([object Object]) ```

``` _If you don't have enough information above to solve the error by yourself (or to understand to which web service the error is related to, if any), please [file an issue](https://github.com/tobie/pr-preview/issues/new?title=Error%20not%20surfaced%20properly&body=See%20w3c/vc-data-model%231469.)._

[TallTed]

The initial comment on this PR should include the specific review comments this PR is meant to address, i.e. --

• [ ] Wordsmith statements to say is that the verifier trusts the issuer to make the statements it's making after verification has been performed.
• [ ] Elaborate on why entities trust/depend on verifiable data registry.
• [ ] Explain why holder trusts the issuer.
• [ ] Say something about the verifier choosing the issuers they want to trust.

These help answer some of my now-inline questions, which I may come back to, but others might address them sooner and/or better.

[TallTed]

it makes the specification longer, so we're probably better leaving things as-is.

It also makes the specification clearer, and was based on requests from a reviewer with significant experience in reviewing specifications.

I think that merging this PR makes us better off than closing it unmerged.

[David-Chadwick]

Resolving most of the conflicts has been achieved. The two remaining conflicts appear to be due to new text added by this PR that have previously been committed and resolved, but that are not reflected in the master copy.

[msporny]

Editorial, multiple reviews, changes requested and made, no objections, merging via PR #1469.