Remove repetition of normative statements in verification algorithm about vc-data-model

[jyasskin]

I don't want to insist on exactly this arrangement of the verifier's data model conformance checks. My request that led to this was in #1338 (comment), and I hope it's clear that the pattern of "ensure that the X property conforms to the "MUST" statements in Section Y" is only a little better than "Check whether verified.document is a [=conforming document=]" with the current definition of "conforming document". @OR13's suggestion to have the "conforming document" definition name the "MUST" statements brings them closer together.

I'd rather have an algorithm that returns "conforming" or "nonconforming" for a document, probably by calling down to a sub-algorithm for each property, but I won't object to the more declarative version that has the verifiers grep for "MUST".

Which is a long way of saying that the route to consensus is probably to do what @OR13's asking.

[msporny]

PR #1381 has been raised to address this issue. This issue will be closed once PR #1381 has been merged.

[iherman]

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2023-12-13

• no resolutions were taken

View the transcript

2.8. Remove repetition of normative statements in verification algorithm (issue vc-data-model#1375)

See github issue vc-data-model#1375.

Brent Zundel: labeled with PR exists, manu can you give an update?

See github pull request vc-data-model#1381.

Manu Sporny: lots of approvals, some unaddressed changes and questions, does not seem to have anything blocking.
… it would remove a large chunk of duplicated normative statements.
… seems this will merge over the weekend.

[msporny]

PR #1381 has been merged, closing.