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

Inconsistent sectioning? #216

Closed
iherman opened this issue Jan 8, 2024 · 6 comments
Closed

Inconsistent sectioning? #216

iherman opened this issue Jan 8, 2024 · 6 comments
Assignees
Labels
editorial Editorial changes only

Comments

@iherman
Copy link
Member

iherman commented Jan 8, 2024

The current sectioning is as follows:

  • §3 Securing the VC Data Model
    • § 3.1 With JOSE
    • § 3.2 With COSE
    • $ 3.3 JOSE Header Parameter and JWT claims
  • § 4. COSE Header Parameters and CWT claims

Shoudn't be either

  • § 4 should be in fact § 3.4; or
  • § 3.3. should be §4 (and the rest of the main sections shift accordingly; or
  • there should be a separate § 4 with a title along the lines of "Header Parameters" with a subsection for JOSE and COSE respectively ;
  • like before, but as a subsection to § 3

I am not a domain expert, so I cannot choose which solution is the best.

@decentralgabe decentralgabe added the editorial Editorial changes only label Jan 8, 2024
@selfissued selfissued self-assigned this Jan 8, 2024
@brentzundel
Copy link
Member

@decentralgabe @selfissued
I propose the following options for restructuring:

  • §3 Securing the VC Data Model
    • § 3.1 With JOSE
    • § 3.2 With COSE
  • §4 Header Parameters
    • §4.1 JOSE Header Parameter and JWT claims
    • §4.2 COSE Header Parameters and CWT claims

or

  • §3 Securing the VC Data Model
    • § 3.1 With JOSE
      • §3.1.1 JOSE Header Parameter and JWT claims
    • § 3.2 With COSE
      • §3.2.1 COSE Header Parameters and CWT claims

Let me know your preference and I will raise a PR.

@TallTed
Copy link
Member

TallTed commented Feb 13, 2024

@brentzundel — I think the latter suggestion is better.

@decentralgabe
Copy link
Collaborator

agree on the latter

@selfissued
Copy link
Collaborator

The latter also works for me.

@brentzundel
Copy link
Member

I will raise a PR to make the changes, but plan to wait until #231 is merged as I expect conflicts if both are pursued simultaneously.

@iherman
Copy link
Member Author

iherman commented Mar 11, 2024

Looking at the latest version of the spec (08 March 2024), this Issue has been completed and is not relevant any more. Closing.

@iherman iherman closed this as completed Mar 11, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
editorial Editorial changes only
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants