OIDC4IDA Editorial issues

Section 2 uses the work “concrete” and this should bbe changed to “specific”
Section 5 “the basic idea” should be re-worded
Section 5 “This way, RPs cannot mix up” - well they could! - reword
Section 6 “the example authorize call…” should start with capitalised “The…”
Section 6.2 clarify that this applies “When using the claims requet parameter”
Section 6.2 “The following examples shows a request asking for evidence of type document” - modify to: “The following example shows a request asking for evidence of type document only”
Section 6.2 ”…for every evidence to the…” change to “…for every evidence array member to the…”
Section 6.4 “…the OP is supposed to process…” - “supposed” is not a great word here is this actually a normative REQUIRED?
Section 7 evidence_supported - should include section number in ref to IDA-verified-claims
Section 7 documents_methods_supported - should say JSON array containing the verification methods the OP supports
Section 7 electronic_records_supported “(See section 12)” should be a ref to IDA-verified-claims
Section 7 “If the OP supports the claims parameter…” add ref to OIDC Core section 5.5
Section 7 “If the OP supports distributed and/or aggregated…” add ref to OIDC Core section 5.6.2
Section 10 - Privacy Considerations - re-order the two paragraphs
Appendix C - “…the contents of this object could look like in the case of…” change to “…he contents of this object could be in the case of…”

‌

Comments (6)