Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Assertions terminology/naming is inconsistent and ambiguous #6

Open
kvakes opened this issue Jul 10, 2020 · 0 comments
Open

Assertions terminology/naming is inconsistent and ambiguous #6

kvakes opened this issue Jul 10, 2020 · 0 comments
Assignees

Comments

@kvakes
Copy link
Member

kvakes commented Jul 10, 2020

Every assertion has three properties: claim, type and proof. Example (from the source code):

{
    "claim": "windingtree.com",
    "type": "dns",
    "proof": "TXT"
}

So, what is type here? Is it the claim type or the proof type? From this example, it seems like it's the type of the proof, a "TXT" DNS record in this case. Let's look at another example (from the source code again):

{
    "claim": "lif.windingtree.com",
    "type": "domain",
    "proof": "https://lif.windingtree.com/orgid.txt"
}

Well now it looks like the type belongs to the claim. This assertion tries to prove that a certain domain is controlled by the claimant. If it was a proof type, it would have been "file", I guess?

I suggest the following change:

{
    "claimType": "domain",
    "claim": "lif.windingtree.com",
    "proofType": "file",
    "proof": "https://lif.windingtree.com/orgid.txt"
}

or

{
    "claimType": "domain",
    "claim": "lif.windingtree.com",
    "proofType": "dns"
}

dns proof should be restricted to TXT records. There is no reason to allow further ambiguity.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants