Optional or not?
Issue #1254
resolved
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”.
Comments (6)
-
-
- changed milestone to Implementer's Draft 4
-
@Daniel Fett - Given Taka’s observations is this issue a MUST do or SHOULD do before moving to “final”
-
reporter 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.
-
reporter This has been resolved here: https://bitbucket.org/openid/ekyc-ida/pull-requests/119
-
reporter - changed status to resolved
- Log in to comment
The whole paragraph that includes the sentence is as follows.
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.