[IDA] typos

[Takahiko Kawasaki]

This is a review for “OpenID Connect for Identity Assurance 1.0”.

1. Torsten’s affiliation in the “Authors” section should be changed from yes.com to his current organization.
2. “OpenID Connect provider” → “OpenID provider” (in the second paragraph in the “Introduction” section)
3. “This specifications” → “This specification” (in the last “Note” in the “Introduction” section)
4. The “Warning” section should be removed.
5. “claim provider” → “claims provider” (twice in the first paragraph in “3.2. identity proofing”)
6. “claim provider” → “claims provider” (in the first paragraph in “3.3. identity verification”)
7. “claim provider” → “claims provider” (in the first paragraph in “3.4. identity assurance”)
8. “eID systems” → “eID system” (at the end of the third paragraph in “4. Requirements”)
9. “implementors” → “implementers” for consistency. (in the 9th paragraph in “4. Requirements”)
10. “defines the a number” → “defines a number” (in the last paragraph in “4. Requirements”)
11. [!@IDA-verified-claims] in the first paragrah in “5.1. Verified claims schema” is not recognized as valid markdown.
12. “, it can be used” → “, which can be used” or “. It can be used” (In the second paragraph in “5.3. Requesting end-user claims”)
13. “the ‘country’ subclaim” → “the country subclaim” (in the 5th paragraph in “5.3. Requesting end-user claims”)
14. “the ‘address’ claim” → “the address claim” (in the 5th paragraph in “5.3. Requesting end-user claims”)
15. “or this draft” → “or this specification” (in the 5th paragraph in “5.3. Requesting end-user claims”)
16. “meets the requirements” → “meet the requirements” (in the second last paragraph in “5.3. Requesting end-user claims”)
17. “Where assurance_details have” → “When assurance_details has” (in the second last paragraph in “5.3. Requesting end-user claims”)
18. “section 5.5.1” → “Section 5.5.1” (in the first paragraph in “5.5.2. max_age”)
19. “family and given name” → “family and given names” (in the last paragraph in “5.6. Requesting claims sets with different verification requirements”)
20. “section 3.3.6” → “section 3.3.3.6” (in the first paragraph in “5.7. Returning less data than requested”)
21. “section 5.5” → “section 5.5.1” (in the last paragraph in “5.7. Returning less data than requested”)
22. “id_token or Userinfo response” → “ID Token or UserInfo response” (in the first paragraph in “5.7.1. Unavailable data”)
23. “id_token or Userinfo response” → “ID Token or UserInfo response” (in the first paragraph in “5.7.2. Non-consented data”)
24. “with a scope" → “with a scope value" (in the second paragraph in “5.8. Requesting sets of claims by scope”)
25. “end-user Claim” → “end-user claim” (in the last paragraph in “6.1. Aggregated and distributed claims assertions”)
26. Append a period at the end of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th bullets in the first list in “6.2. Aggregated and distributed claims validation”.
27. “one or more type” → “one or more types” (in the description for evidence_supported in “8. OP metadata”)
28. “in the evidence element” → “in the evidence element” (fixed width font) (in the description for evidence_supported in “8. OP metadata”)
29. “see section 4.2.2” → “see section 5.4.4” (in the description for evidence_supported in “8. OP metadata”)
30. @!predefined_values in the description for documents_methods_supported in “8. OP metadata” is not recognized as valid markdown.
31. The scheme of the link to the OIDC Core spec in “13. Normative References” should be changed from http to https.
32. The scheme of the link to the OpenID4IDAClaims spec in “13. Normative References” should be changed from http to https.
33. The URLs to the FAPI-1-RW spec and the FAPI-2-BL spec in “14. Informative References” should be updated. Also, their release dates should be checked. For example, the “Informative References” section says that the FAPI-2-BL was released in September, 2020, but probably it is wrong.
34. I'm not sure that [[ this specification ]] in “A.2. Media type registration” is intended or invalid markdown.
35. “implementors” → “implementers” (in the last paragraph in “B.1. Verification of claims by a document”)
36. “Self-Issued OpenID Connect provider” → “Self-Issued OpenID provider” (in the title and the first paragraph of C.9)
37. “a ID Token” → “an ID Token” (in the first paragraph of C.9)
38. Torsten’s affiliation in the “Authors' Addresses” section should be changed from yes.com to his current organization.

‌

[Mark Haine]

‌

1. Torsten’s affiliation in the “Authors” section should be changed from yes.com to his current organization.
2. “OpenID Connect provider” → “OpenID provider” (in the second paragraph in the “Introduction” section)
3. “This specifications” → “This specification” (in the last “Note” in the “Introduction” section)
4. The “Warning” section should be removed. not until it is approved by foundation wide vote
5. “claim provider” → “claims provider” (twice in the first paragraph in “3.2. identity proofing”) I think we settled on singular because of ISO guidance and translation challenges of plurals
6. “claim provider” → “claims provider” (in the first paragraph in “3.3. identity verification”) I think we settled on singular because of ISO guidance and translation challenges of plurals
7. “claim provider” → “claims provider” (in the first paragraph in “3.4. identity assurance”) I think we settled on singular because of ISO guidance and translation challenges of plurals
8. “eID systems” → “eID system” (at the end of the third paragraph in “4. Requirements”)
9. “implementors” → “implementers” for consistency. (in the 9th paragraph in “4. Requirements”)
10. “defines the a number” → “defines a number” (in the last paragraph in “4. Requirements”)
11. [!@IDA-verified-claims] in the first paragrah in “5.1. Verified claims schema” is not recognized as valid markdown. it should be @! not !@
12. “, it can be used” → “, which can be used” or “. It can be used” (In the second paragraph in “5.3. Requesting end-user claims”) - I prefer “which”
13. “the ‘country’ subclaim” → “the country subclaim” (in the 5th paragraph in “5.3. Requesting end-user claims”)
14. “the ‘address’ claim” → “the address claim” (in the 5th paragraph in “5.3. Requesting end-user claims”)
15. “or this draft” → “or this specification” (in the 5th paragraph in “5.3. Requesting end-user claims”)
16. “meets the requirements” → “meet the requirements” (in the second last paragraph in “5.3. Requesting end-user claims”) agree with removing the plural but the text that needs to change is “fulfill the requirements”
17. “Where assurance_details have” → “When assurance_details has” (in the second last paragraph in “5.3. Requesting end-user claims”) it’s second last paragraph of 5.4
18. “section 5.5.1” → “Section 5.5.1” (in the first paragraph in “5.5.2. max_age”)
19. “family and given name” → “family and given names” (in the last paragraph in “5.6. Requesting claims sets with different verification requirements”) might be even more accurate if we switch it to refer to the claim names requested “family and given name” → “ family_name and given_name “
20. “section 3.3.6” → “section 3.3.3.6” (in the first paragraph in “5.7. Returning less data than requested”)
21. “section 5.5” → “section 5.5.1” (in the last paragraph in “5.7. Returning less data than requested”)
22. “id_token or Userinfo response” → “ID Token or UserInfo response” (in the first paragraph in “5.7.1. Unavailable data”) but double check with Edmund and Nat
23. “id_token or Userinfo response” → “ID Token or UserInfo response” (in the first paragraph in “5.7.2. Non-consented data”) but double check with Edmund and Nat
24. “with a scope" → “with a scope value" (in the second paragraph in “5.8. Requesting sets of claims by scope”)
25. “end-user Claim” → “end-user claim” (in the last paragraph in “6.1. Aggregated and distributed claims assertions”)
26. Append a period at the end of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th bullets in the first list in “6.2. Aggregated and distributed claims validation”.
27. “one or more type” → “one or more types” (in the description for evidence_supported in “8. OP metadata”) I think we settled on singular because of ISO guidance and translation challenges of plurals
28. “in the evidence element” → “in the evidence element” (fixed width font) (in the description for evidence_supported in “8. OP metadata”)
29. “see section 4.2.2” → “see section 5.4.4” (in the description for evidence_supported in “8. OP metadata”)
30. @!predefined_values in the description for documents_methods_supported in “8. OP metadata” is not recognized as valid markdown. the issue is that the tag is incorrect - it should be [@!predefined_values_page]
31. The scheme of the link to the OIDC Core spec in “13. Normative References” should be changed from http to https.
32. The scheme of the link to the OpenID4IDAClaims spec in “13. Normative References” should be changed from http to https.
33. The URLs to the FAPI-1-RW spec and the FAPI-2-BL spec in “14. Informative References” should be updated. Also, their release dates should be checked. For example, the “Informative References” section says that the FAPI-2-BL was released in September, 2020, but probably it is wrong.
34. I'm not sure that [[ this specification ]] in “A.2. Media type registration” is intended or invalid markdown. - That should be updated to refer to the location of this document once it is approved and published - maybe raise dedicated issue?
35. “implementors” → “implementers” (in the last paragraph in “B.1. Verification of claims by a document”)
36. “Self-Issued OpenID Connect provider” → “Self-Issued OpenID provider” (in the title and the first paragraph of C.9)
37. “a ID Token” → “an ID Token” (in the first paragraph of C.9)
38. Torsten’s affiliation in the “Authors' Addresses” section should be changed from yes.com to his current organization.

‌

[Mark Haine]

I added a specific to “finalization tasks” https://bitbucket.org/openid/ekyc-ida/issues/1407/ida-final-tasks to cover the “this specification” referencing in Media Type Registration section

‌

[Mark Haine]

I think we should address the “FAPI 1 RW” reference as a separate item - since this ref was written into this draft spec FAPI has gone to final and we should reference either:

Financial-grade API Security Profile (FAPI) 1.0 – Part 1: Baseline

or

Financial-grade API Security Profile (FAPI) 1.0 – Part 2: Advanced

‌

** update - @Joseph has recommended that we ref Part2:Advanced - no need to separate the task after all.

[Mark Haine]

for the FAPI2 reference it should be: FAPI 2.0 Security Profile

[Kosuke Koiwai]

Let me add some more:

1. “Note: it is not possible to request sub-claims ….” should start with a new line (Section 5.3)
2. “fulfil”-> “fulfill” UK vs US English (Section 5.6: the OP delivers the claim in as many verified claims response objects it can fulfil.)
3. No definition of “AS” in Introduction (as with OP and RP) (Section 5.2, Section 6.1)
4. “JSON web tokens” should be capitalized as this is a spec name (Section 10)
5. Authors names should be written when citing FAPI (Section 14)

‌

‌

[Mark Haine]

Being addressed by PR#208

[Mark Haine]

Resolved by PR208