Spelling

.custom-words.txt

@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ DIDs
 DNS
 DNSLinks
 Datalog
+DoS
 ECDSA
 EdDSA
 GLVVQR
@@ -33,6 +34,7 @@ Gozalishvili
 HEHYSF
 Haus
 Holmgren
+IPLD
 Irakli
 JSON
 JWT
@@ -45,12 +47,14 @@ Memoized
 Merkle
 Mikael
 MkiTBz
+Monotonicity
 OAuth
 OCAP
 OCapN
 PITM
 PKI
 Philipp
+Pseudocode
 RESTful
 RL
 RSA
@@ -79,6 +83,7 @@ WG
 WebNative
 Webber
 ZCAP
+Zelda
 Zelenka
 adoptability
 alice
@@ -90,12 +95,14 @@ bene
 blockchain
 codec
 codecs
+const
 crudGraph
 cryptographically
 del
 delegable
 delegatee
 delegator
+delegators
 dereference
 disambiguates
 disjunct
@@ -105,6 +112,7 @@ enums
 extractable
 filesystem
 fooey
+forEach
 hawaii
 init
 inlining
@@ -127,6 +135,16 @@ namespace
 namespaced
 namespaces
 naud
+nbsp
+nbsp
+nbspAlice
+nbspAlice
+nbspBob
+nbspBob
+nbspCarol
+nbspDan
+nbspDan
+nbspZelda
 ncap
 niss
 nota
@@ -135,6 +153,8 @@ plaintext
 potencies
 pre
 preimages
+prf
+priori
 quG
 rc
 reauthorizations

README.md

@@ -307,7 +307,7 @@ Being expressed as an Invocation means that Revocations MUST define an Action ty
 
 ### 6.1.1 Path Witness
 
-Since all delegation chains MUST be rooted in a Delegation where the `iss` and `sub` fields are equal, the root Issuer is a priori in every delegation chain. This is not the case for sub-delegation. There are many paths through the authority network. For exmaple, take the following delegation network:
+Since all delegation chains MUST be rooted in a Delegation where the `iss` and `sub` fields are equal, the root Issuer is a priori in every delegation chain. This is not the case for sub-delegation. There are many paths through the authority network. For example, take the following delegation network:
 
 ``` mermaid
 flowchart LR
@@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ flowchart LR
     Alice -->|delegates| Mallory
 ```
 
-Mallory is not in the delegation chain of Erin. This is fine, since the semantics of revocation merely state that she would assert that no delegation of hers may be used in the `prf` field of an Invocation if it also includes the `rev` Delegation. However, issuing spurious Revocations and requiring them to be stored is a potential DoS vector. Executors MAY require a delegation path witness be included to avoid this situaton.
+Mallory is not in the delegation chain of Erin. This is fine, since the semantics of revocation merely state that she would assert that no delegation of hers may be used in the `prf` field of an Invocation if it also includes the `rev` Delegation. However, issuing spurious Revocations and requiring them to be stored is a potential DoS vector. Executors MAY require a delegation path witness be included to avoid this situation.
 
 Unlike Mallory, Bob, Carol, and Dan can both provide valid delegation paths that include Delegations that they have issued. Bob has two paths (`Alice -> Bob -> Dan -> Erin` or `Alice -> Bob -> Carol -> Erin`), and either will suffice.