Unclear definitions for requests

Issue #1311 resolved
Daniel Fett created an issue

Sometimes we seem to forget that the same text in the spec describes not only responses, but also requests. Different rules apply to both and this is not always reflected properly.

In assurance_details, the spec says:

  • txn: REQUIRED. Identifier referring to the txn used in the check_details. The OP MUST ensure that txn is present in the check_details when evidence_ref element is used.

This should probably say assurance_details instead of check_details, and I guess the ‘REQUIRED’ only applies to responses?


The spec also says:

  • evidence_ref: OPTIONAL. JSON array of the evidence being referred to. When present this array MUST have at least one member.

I guess this also only applies to responses?


Does it make sense to use assurance_details at all in requests?

Comments (8)

  1. Julian White

    “The OP MUST ensure that txn is present in the check_details when evidence_ref element is used.” is the correct behaviour.

    evidence_ref doesn't work if the txn is not present in check_details because its using the txn to link the assurance_details to the specific check done.

    How to use assurance_details in the request is described in ## Requesting Verification Data but it might be useful to include a note/link to that from the earlier section.

  2. Daniel Fett reporter

    After reading everything again, we might not have a problem in this regard at all. I think what I was concerned about is actually explained in Section 6. The one thing that we need to make clear, however, is that Section 5 only applies to responses, not requests.

    I therefore propose to change the title of Section 5 to “Representing Verified Claims” (Section 6 is called “Requesting Verified Claims”).

  3. Log in to comment