Brian Campbell

#394 does introduce more abbreviations where the terms are defined so might obsolete the need for a new section.

I'm gonna say https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt/pull/394 will sufficiently address the suggestion here.

Honestly, I thought recursive redaction was kinda niche too but a nontrivial number of people have wanted/supported it. And the algorithm defined in the spec right now does accommodate it...

The holder selecting which disclosures to include is indeed complicated by the recursive stuff. And I do think/agree that that bit of complication hasn't been considered as much. But I'd...

I think ~~https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt/issues/384~~ goes a long way towards addressing this. I meant #394, sorry.

I believe the merging of https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt/pull/394 clears this one up

There are indeed similarities to to `"alg": "none"` but I don't think it's an exact parallel. There's a lot of text about the verifier policy decisions with respect to requiring...

> I admit that I have not done the work to see how the current text would map to this structure. If people are on board in principle, I could...

> split the current verification algorithm in two, where one algorithm covers validation of the base SD-JWT properties (issuer JWT valid, all disclosures accounted for), and the other first validates...

> feeling increasingly confident that Token and Presentation are good terms for "SD-JWT-without-KB" and "SD-JWT-with-KB", respectively. Strongly disagree with Token and Presentation being good terms in this context. > Or...