Skip to content

Commit 5f2c57f

Browse files
mspornydlongleyTallTed
committed
Fix grammar in validity period guidance.
Co-authored-by: Dave Longley <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>
1 parent ba255b0 commit 5f2c57f

File tree

1 file changed

+15
-14
lines changed

1 file changed

+15
-14
lines changed

index.html

+15-14
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -1815,12 +1815,13 @@ <h3>Bitstring Encoding</h3>
18151815
<h3>Validity Periods</h3>
18161816

18171817
<p>
1818-
The <a data-cite="?VC-DATA-MODEL-2.0#validity-period">validity period</a> of a
1819-
status list is dependent on a variety of factors including:
1818+
The <a data-cite="?VC-DATA-MODEL-2.0#validity-period">validity period</a> that
1819+
an issuer might choose to express in a status list is dependent on a variety of
1820+
factors including:
18201821
</p>
18211822
<ul>
18221823
<li>
1823-
How often do status values change? In real-time? Daily? Weekly? Monthly?
1824+
How often do status values change? In real-time? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Other?
18241825
</li>
18251826
<li>
18261827
Is there a regulatory requirement that compels an [=issuer=] to notify a
@@ -1831,23 +1832,23 @@ <h3>Validity Periods</h3>
18311832
damage by not notifying a [=verifier=] of a status change?
18321833
</li>
18331834
<li>
1834-
Is there an expectation by a [=verifier=] to not accept a
1835-
[=verifiable credential=] with a status list that does not expire for an
1836-
excessive period of time?
1835+
Is there any expectation that a [=verifier=] will not accept a
1836+
[=verifiable credential=] with a status list that does not expire for a
1837+
period of time it deems excessive?
18371838
</li>
18381839
<li>
1839-
Is there an excessive network bandwidth or computing burden placed upon an
1840-
[=issuer=] or a [=verifier=] if a validity period is too short for a
1841-
status list?
1840+
Will a short validity period for a status list cause a significant network
1841+
bandwidth or computing burden for an [=issuer=] or a [=verifier=]? Might
1842+
this burden be mitigated by a longer validity period?
18421843
</li>
18431844
</ul>
18441845

18451846
<p>
1846-
Since these factors vary based on ecosystem and credential type, there is no
1847-
minimum or maximum validity period that is suggested for a status list.
1848-
[=Issuers=] will need to take various considerations into account that are
1849-
specific to their [=verifiable credential=] types and pick validity periods that
1850-
will strike the right balance in their ecosystem.
1847+
Since these factors vary with the ecosystem and credential type, there is no
1848+
minimum or maximum validity period that is suggested for all status lists.
1849+
[=Issuers=] will need to consider various factors that are specific to their
1850+
[=verifiable credential=] types and choose validity periods that will strike
1851+
the right balance in their ecosystem.
18511852
</p>
18521853
</section>
18531854

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)