Add a note about the known limitations of the credential claim metadata #280
+26
−0
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
As discussed on yesterday's working group call: #266 (comment) As it seems likely that #276 will not make it into implementer's draft 1, we instead add warnings about the known limitations of the current data structure so that implementer's are aware. Note that I have not applied this to the mdoc profile section, as that sections seems not to allow nested objects in the metadata.
jogu
requested review from
danielfett,
tlodderstedt,
paulbastian and
Sakurann
|
It case it's helpful here's an example of how this renders:
|
Sakurann
reviewed
Feb 28, 2024
| > The above metadata structure has some known limitations: | ||
| > | ||
| > * It cannot be used to describe claims in credentials that have the name `mandatory`, `value_type` or `display`. | ||
| > * It is not possible to provide `mandatory`, `value_type` or `display` values for objects that contain claims |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is the most important and should be the first one. and it should also be much more clearer, something like:
Suggested change
| > * It is not possible to provide `mandatory`, `value_type` or `display` values for objects that contain claims | |
| > * It is not possible to provide `mandatory`, `value_type` or `display` values for the intermediary claims in the nested objects |
Sakurann
reviewed
Feb 28, 2024
Comment on lines
+1998
to
+2006
| > The above metadata structure has some known limitations: | ||
| > | ||
| > * It cannot be used to describe claims in credentials that have the name `mandatory`, `value_type` or `display`. | ||
| > * It is not possible to provide `mandatory`, `value_type` or `display` values for objects that contain claims | ||
| > * The `order` parameter cannot be used for claims within objects | ||
| > * Arrays of unknown size cannot be described | ||
| > | ||
| > These limitations are expected to be resolved in the second Implementer's Draft, a proposal can be viewed in [Issue 266](https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VCI/issues/266). | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we have not used this > format in other places in the spec. I would like to avoid introducing it and drawing unnecessary attention to this
Suggested change
| > The above metadata structure has some known limitations: | |
| > | |
| > * It cannot be used to describe claims in credentials that have the name `mandatory`, `value_type` or `display`. | |
| > * It is not possible to provide `mandatory`, `value_type` or `display` values for objects that contain claims | |
| > * The `order` parameter cannot be used for claims within objects | |
| > * Arrays of unknown size cannot be described | |
| > | |
| > These limitations are expected to be resolved in the second Implementer's Draft, a proposal can be viewed in [Issue 266](https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VCI/issues/266). | |
| Note that the above metadata structure has some known limitations: | |
| * It cannot be used to describe claims in credentials that have the name `mandatory`, `value_type` or `display`. | |
| * It is not possible to provide `mandatory`, `value_type` or `display` values for objects that contain claims | |
| * The `order` parameter cannot be used for claims within objects | |
| * Arrays of unknown size cannot be described | |
| These limitations are expected to be resolved in the second Implementer's Draft, a proposal can be viewed in [Issue 266](https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VCI/issues/266). | |
Sakurann
reviewed
Feb 28, 2024
| > * The `order` parameter cannot be used for claims within objects | ||
| > * Arrays of unknown size cannot be described | ||
| > | ||
| > These limitations are expected to be resolved in the second Implementer's Draft, a proposal can be viewed in [Issue 266](https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VCI/issues/266). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not sure about the current framing... I think the following is sufficient.
Suggested change
| > These limitations are expected to be resolved in the second Implementer's Draft, a proposal can be viewed in [Issue 266](https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VCI/issues/266). | |
| > Mechanisms that could address these limitations are being discussed in [Issue 266](https://github.com/openid/OpenID4VCI/issues/266). |
Sakurann
requested changes
Feb 28, 2024
|
This was discussed on last Thursday's working group call and there wasn't anyone that felt strongly about merging this for ID2. I suggest it can probably be closed. |
|
closing as we decided not to include this before ID1. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As discussed on yesterday's working group call:
#266 (comment)
As it seems likely that #276 will not make it into implementer's draft 1, we instead add warnings about the known limitations of the current data structure so that implementer's are aware.
Note that I have not applied this to the mdoc profile section, as that sections seems not to allow nested objects in the metadata.