search

w3c / vc-data-model

W3C Verifiable Credentials v2.0 Specification
https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/
Other
290 stars 106 forks source link

Remove at risk marker for `refreshService` property. #1497

Closed msporny closed 2 months ago

msporny commented 4 months ago

This PR is an attempt to partially address issue #1437 by removing the at risk issue marker for the refreshService property.

There are two registered specifications in the VC Specifications Directory that use the extension point. The 1EdTech VC Refresh v1.0 specification uses the extension point. The Conexxus Age Verification v1.0 standard uses the extension point, which has been implemented by (at least) Spruce (California DMV), TruAge, and Digital Bazaar.

Preview | Diff

iherman commented 3 months ago

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2024-06-05

View the transcript #### 5.3. Removing at risk issue markers. _See github pull request [vc-data-model#1495](https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1495)._ _See github pull request [vc-data-model#1496](https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1496)._ _See github pull request [vc-data-model#1497](https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1497)._ _See github pull request [vc-data-model#1498](https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1498)._ **Manu Sporny:** 1495, 1496, 197, 1498, each one of these either reserves terms (confidenceMethod, renderMethod), don't have time to finish them but will reserve terms. … remove terms of use. … had it in the spec before, not enough implementations, keep term reserved but remove section from spec. … for all others, enough implementations based on criteria previously agreed on to keep them in spec. … refresh service and evidence kept in spec, reserve confidenceMethod and renderMethod. **Brent Zundel:** the course this group agreed to at the beginning on extension points, agreed that if implementers exist using these extensions we will keep them in the spec. … these PRs are an expression of that intent, at this point it would be inappropriate to challenge the intent. … if you have qualms about the PRs it would be inappropriate to be about their course. … all are welcome to change their mind but hopefully people stay the course here. **Ivan Herman:** my issue is timing not intent, as I said at the beginning of this call, the charter/proposal that goes out says that there is an exception for terms that are at risk but in the spec. … if I go out to the AC now and there is no at risk feature in the spec we have a problem. … propose we agree with the PRs but do not merge them before the vote is out at the AC. **Manu Sporny:** +1, I think we can wait, there will just need to be some maintenance on the PRs. **Brent Zundel:** any other PRs we need to look at.
msporny commented 2 months ago

Per the call today, the Chair noted that we no longer need to hold off on merging this PR.

msporny commented 2 months ago

Editorial, multiple reviews, no changes requested, merge hold lifted, no objections, merging.