search

w3c / vc-jws-2020

Verifiable Credentials Working Group — JSON Web Signature 2020 specification
https://w3c.github.io/vc-jws-2020/
Other
5 stars 1 forks source link

Naming of work #31

Closed martinthomson closed 1 year ago

martinthomson commented 1 year ago

The title of the current document ("JSON Web Signature 2020") is potentially misleading. It implies a revision of the JWS specification rather than what it actually appears to be. If this were a revision, as opposed to a set of algorithm identifiers and a profile that uses those, then that would be the domain of the IETF[^1].

The titles used on the repository are clearer perhaps, but if I might suggest something like "Profile of JSON Web Signatures for Verifiable Credentials" or similar.

This probably extends to the identifiers chosen. Perhaps "vc-jws-2020" works[^2].

[^1]: I'll note that the idea of using a year to identify a profile in this manner has been discussed in the IETF, to a generally unfavourable response (or at least that is my interpretation of the feedback received).

[^2]: or maybe 2023?

OR13 commented 1 year ago

Profile of JSON Web Signatures for Verifiable Credentials

Good suggestion, I agree with the title being misleading.

Another option would be "JSON Web Signatures for Data Integrity Proofs"

mprorock commented 1 year ago

I am a fan of "JSON Web Signatures for Data Integrity Proofs" or "Data Integrity Proofs with JSON Web Signatures"

Sakurann commented 1 year ago

Profile of JSON Web Signatures for Verifiable Credentials

this is misleading in my opinion. The naming should reflect that this is a crypto suite to be used with Data Integrity.

So something like “JSON Web Signature Suite for Data Integrity” would be preferable.

brianorwhatever commented 1 year ago

Another option would be "JSON Web Signatures for Data Integrity Proofs"

+1 to this option

peacekeeper commented 1 year ago

Does it even need a special human-readable name? Why not just call them all consistently:

Or something other than "cryptosuite". Anyway, just an idea, I also like the names proposed above.

OR13 commented 1 year ago

@peacekeeper I think it is a mistake to name the spec exactly the same as the RDF type, but certainly all the types should align with each other.

I have proposed the name with the most consensus on this thread here: https://github.com/w3c/vc-jws-2020/pull/32

brentzundel commented 1 year ago

PR #32 has been merged. Can this be closed?