Clarified intent_to_retain value when not present#730
Conversation
Sakurann
requested review from
GarethCOliver,
awoie,
c2bo,
davidz25,
hlozi and
martijnharing
selfissued
left a comment
selfissued
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should not be creating a default interpretation of not specifying this parameter in a way that requires changes to existing wallets.
|
|
||
| `intent_to_retain` | ||
| : OPTIONAL. A boolean that is equivalent to `IntentToRetain` variable defined in Section 8.3.2.1.2.1 of [@ISO.18013-5]. | ||
| : OPTIONAL. A boolean that is equivalent to `IntentToRetain` variable defined in Section 8.3.2.1.2.1 of [@ISO.18013-5]. If not specified, the Wallet uses the value `false`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can't find any place where we actually reached a conclusion on what we should do.
#669 (comment) says:
explicitly stating that intent_to_retain being optional means that the verifier is not specifying if it will retain or not, which is arguably what the current spec says.
|
discussed in call today. Some suggested changes to the text were made. |
|
Seemed to be consensus that if the verifier is not expressing anything, the wallet should indicate that the verifier hasn't expressed anything. |
selfissued
left a comment
selfissued
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please delete the statements "If not specified, the Wallet uses the value false." and replace them with statements that if not specified, the caller is making statement about whether it will retain the claims or not.
Co-authored-by: Christian Bormann <chris.bormann@gmx.de>
Co-authored-by: Christian Bormann <chris.bormann@gmx.de>
5 participants
resolves #669 and potentially #642 - need to discuss if we want to add additional text to clarify usage of
useis not mandatory