Improve normative statement WRT to derived proofValue element count. #188
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
TallTed
reviewed
Oct 21, 2024
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
|
@TallTed just so this is known @Wind4Greg has offered to update the statements in the spec WRT to blind and pseudonym options. Greg's knowledge of the ietf specs is far greater than mine so this PR probably will be closed when @Wind4Greg 's PR makes it in. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a draft because this addition could be wrong.
The current wording in the spec leaves the 7th element mentioned in the normative statement around derived proof values ambiguous. This PR speculates that the 7th element is an optional element in components included by some featureOptions such as blind and pseudonym algorithms.
Preview | Diff