Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

added note clarifying that credentialSubject.id is not used #196

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jandrieu
Copy link

@jandrieu jandrieu commented Jan 6, 2025

to look up the entry in the status list.

Addresses #184


Preview | Diff

@@ -733,6 +733,12 @@ <h3>BitstringStatusListEntry</h3>
credential.
</p>

<p class="note">
It is important to note that the statusListIndex is the only link between
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some formatting fixes (I think) here and below.

Suggested change
It is important to note that the statusListIndex is the only link between
It is important to note that `statusListIndex` is the only link between

@@ -733,6 +733,12 @@ <h3>BitstringStatusListEntry</h3>
credential.
</p>

<p class="note">
It is important to note that the statusListIndex is the only link between
the [=Verifiable credential=] and its status in the list. The
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
the [=Verifiable credential=] and its status in the list. The
the [=verifiable credential=] and its status in the list. The

Comment on lines +738 to +739
the [=Verifiable credential=] and its status in the list. The
```credentialSubject.id``` is not used when checking status.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Formatting fixes (I think) and a slight tweak to make credentialSubject.id just one example -- and to change the "when" conjunction so we aren't suggesting that some business rule can't consider other properties "during" a status check, but rather, those properties aren't used to check status, or more specifically for the purpose of VC status list linkage. I believe we are trying to say these other properties aren't the relevant "links" to status here, and this is the best language I could quickly come up with.

Suggested change
the [=Verifiable credential=] and its status in the list. The
```credentialSubject.id``` is not used when checking status.
the [=verifiable credential=] and its status in the list. Other
properties such as `credentialSubject.id` are not used for
this purpose.

Copy link
Member

@msporny msporny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM as long as @dlongley's changes are made.

Copy link

@longpd longpd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If Dave's changes are acted on +1 to approve this.

@iherman
Copy link
Member

iherman commented Jan 8, 2025

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2025-01-08

  • no resolutions were taken
View the transcript

4.1. added note clarifying that credentialSubject.id is not used (pr vc-bitstring-status-list#196)

See github pull request vc-bitstring-status-list#196.

Brent Zundel: There is one request for changes from Dave Longley.

Phillip Long: for #136 a note to the effect summarizing the conversation we just had might be helpful, at least to ubamrein.

Kevin Dean: Just to say that Joe is unable to join today, power outage, high winds, etc.

Brent Zundel: Yes, thoughts with Joe with the CA fires.

Kevin Dean: He feels that the PR is simple enough to be worked on without his presence.

Brent Zundel: Looks like Dave's changes are editorial for the most part.

Manu Sporny: +1 to the PR as long as the changes go in, that's it.

Brent Zundel: Any other comments? Our standard practice is to allow the PR author to accept changes so we shouldn't move forward with those things regardless of how editorial they may be.
… If any other folks have comments -- otherwise we can look at the issues next.
… PR #196 is going to address issue #184. I don't believe we need to talk about that one.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants