You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
PatStLouis opened this issue
Jul 24, 2024
· 0 comments
Labels
CR1This item was processed during the first Candidate Recommendation phase.discussThis issue is a discussion with no clear change requestednormativeThe item is normative in nature.
It would be advisable to prevent issuers from including 2 entries with the same statusPurpose. Or at the very least say that if 2 same purposes are included, each entry MUST have an id field.
Is there use cases where an issuer might want to provide 2 separate revocation entries? I could see it being a thing, however there needs to be a way to differentiate them both based on a unique id.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
msporny
added
normative
The item is normative in nature.
CR1
This item was processed during the first Candidate Recommendation phase.
labels
Sep 16, 2024
CR1This item was processed during the first Candidate Recommendation phase.discussThis issue is a discussion with no clear change requestednormativeThe item is normative in nature.
It would be advisable to prevent issuers from including 2 entries with the same
statusPurpose
. Or at the very least say that if 2 same purposes are included, each entry MUST have an id field.Is there use cases where an issuer might want to provide 2 separate revocation entries? I could see it being a thing, however there needs to be a way to differentiate them both based on a unique id.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: