Closed mprorock closed 1 year ago
Note - not super happy about the way the examples read out in various sections, but will address that in a future PR for example heavy sections.
@Sakurann,
relationship with JWT should peobably be clearer. probably something like the following is needed: "VC-JWT can be used with any JSON-based representation of claims, including JSON-LD."
We should be careful with that specific language. That language can be misinterpreted as "If you use VC-JWT, you can turn any JSON into a VC!" which would certainly result in objections. I'm not quite sure what the goal is, but I expect it can be achieved with slightly different language that won't raise objections. VC-JWT is intended to secure VCs (or alternative representations of VCs that can (therefore) be mapped to application/vc+ld+json
) ... not just anything. It wouldn't make sense to call the technology "VC-JWT" otherwise.
I don't think you were trying to imply anything else, I'm just worried about the specific language creating an issue.
The other point to make here may be that it needs to be clear that the cty
field indicates whether you've got:
application/vc+ld+json
orapplication/vc+ld+json
directly.relationship with JWT should peobably be clearer. probably something like the following is needed: "VC-JWT can be used with any JSON-based representation of claims, including JSON-LD." (inspired by what we put in SD-JWT)
yes - i think that is a much better path - let me work on some language there.
I have suggestions, but I would happily take the PR without them being applied lots of improvement in here.
thanks for the suggestions in - I have incorporated the bulk of them and opened issues to track items we should address in follow on PRs
@Sakurann requesting another review
The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2023-05-03
I've left a bunch of suggestions should the consensus be to remove normative language. I encourage doing so, but will not block if the suggestions are not accepted.
merged - thank you
@Sakurann we are still waiting for your concrete change request, we will merge the PR if we don't hear back from you in 1 week.
The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2023-05-10
Lots of approvals, no change requests, except perhaps: https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt/pull/77#discussion_r1183899708
I am filing this issue to address it in follow up: https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt/issues/84
Beginning to add text to section headings, security considerations, etc
Preview | Diff