-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
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
Change short name to vc-jose-cose #115
Conversation
putting this adjustment in its own pr
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ | |||
|
|||
// the specification's short name, as in | |||
// http://www.w3.org/TR/short-name/ | |||
shortName: "vc-jwt", | |||
shortName: "vc-jose-cose", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems to suggest that the https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt repo should be moved to https://github.com/w3c/vc-jose-cose?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yep, we would want to do that, after the working group approves, GitHub will do a a redirect for us, and W3C handles short name changes in the TR space.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well... as long as this is only a change of the Repo, that is a piece of cake.
However, does it mean to change the short name of the specification as well? We can do that, but it requires all kinds of complicated set ups at the W3C system team level, because they will have to set up redirections. Remember that no W3C URL should be a 404, ie, the https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-jwt
should live forever in the form of a redirection. In essence, we would have two /TR URLs for the same document, even if the vc-jwt
version would not be advertised.
Is this really worth the headache and the trouble?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think renaming this is worth it.
As far as how, perhaps it would be easier to create a new spec. Then in the text of the vc-jwt spec point to the new one, without redirecting?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@iherman imo it is worth it for a lot of reasons, many of which have been documented in the most contentious PRs that we are not able to merge.
The current name no longer reflects working group consensus, based on resolutions we have passed, the discussions regarding mappings, and advancements that have been made outside the working group.
I leave it to the chairs to confirm, or clarify what I am summarizing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am good with option 2
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
concurring with Brent's assessment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I propose that we (which may be me...) contact the webmaster to see what possible hurdles there are on option (2). If they are too important, we may have to fall back on option (1).
Do we have a consensus about trying (2)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Sakurann @brentzundel please establish consensus on this topic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'll put in on the agenda for next week's VCWG call
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe this more closely aligns the naming with the substance of the spec.
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ | |||
|
|||
// the specification's short name, as in | |||
// http://www.w3.org/TR/short-name/ | |||
shortName: "vc-jwt", | |||
shortName: "vc-jose-cose", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
could you elaborate a little more why not vc-jose
, but vc-jose-cose
? what is the plan for cose?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We define how to secure the media types registered in https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/
We already explain how to secure them as COSE Sign1.
https://w3c.github.io/vc-jwt/#with-cose
We don't want key discovery or other header processing details to be different for JOSE and COSE... we want consistent alignment between protected header values and key and algorithms.
for example:
In jose, protected header contains alg
and kid
... kid
used to discover jwk
with same alg
....
In cose, protected header contains alg
and kid
... kid
used to discover cose key
with same alg
....
When iss
is present in the header, is kid
relative... see: https://identity.foundation/jwt-vc-presentation-profile/#kid-jose-header
We need to address these usability issues related to W3C specs, consistently for JOSE and COSE.
FYI: I have asked the webmaster to tell me shat it entails to change the short name of a Rec-track publication. |
Here are the steps that we will have to follow to officially change the short name of the spec as far as the W3C publication system goes:
Once this process is started, no new PR should be merged until step (5) has been reached, to avoid versioning problems. This has to be done only once to add the information to the publication change. [1] https://www.w3.org/pubrules/doc/rules/?profile=WD#docIDHistory cc: @deniak |
Adding to the practical aspect in #115 (comment), I believe that any such change would require a formal resolution of the WG; just as the decision on the choice of the short name, I guess any change thereof should be on record. |
I will open a PR that does 1-3 here: #115 (comment) We will old all the PRs after that PR is merged, We will complete 4 and 5 We will unblock the open PRs. |
The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2023-07-12 List of resolutions:
View the transcript3. VC-JWT shortname change to vc-jose-cose.Brent Zundel: there has been discussion of the vc-jwt spec... people seems to like vc-jose-cose. See github pull request vc-jwt#115. Brent Zundel: seems pretty straightforward. Manu Sporny: Regarding our charter... Brent Zundel: yes, our charter says we are allowed to have various input documents.
Ivan Herman: yeah so... on the practicalities. I had discussed this with the web master. Orie Steele: I'm happy to make the necessary changes, Ivan. Let me know what changes need to be made. Ivan Herman: thanks orie, please go through the list on the issue comment, sometime next week. |
Closing this in favor of #126 |
putting this adjustment in its own pr
Preview | Diff