Optional or not?

[Daniel Fett]

The spec says:

If not stated otherwise, every sub-element in `verified_claims` is defined as optional.

However, the only two sub-elemnts in verified_claims currently defined, claims and verification, are both “REQUIRED”.

[Takahiko Kawasaki]

The whole paragraph that includes the sentence is as follows.

(From Section 5. verfied_claims Element)

Note: If not stated otherwise, every sub-element in verified_claims is defined as optional. Extensions of this specification, including trust framework definitions, can define further constraints on the data structure.

From a viewpoint of implementers, either existence or nonexistence of the paragraph does not matter. The paragraph can be removed or can continue to sit there. In either case, implementations won’t be affected. The paragraph itself is harmless because it does not have contradictions and does not have conflicts with other parts of the specification.

[Mark Haine]

@Daniel Fett - Given Taka’s observations is this issue a MUST do or SHOULD do before moving to “final”

[Daniel Fett]

I think we SHOULD remove the first sentence and just leave the second sentence there. We can move it to the bottom of the section where it makes more sense, I guess.

[Daniel Fett]

This has been resolved here: https://bitbucket.org/openid/ekyc-ida/pull-requests/119