sebbader-sap

Adding another one: https://github.com/International-Data-Spaces-Association/ids-specification/blob/63e5a401192336177f1d547ebd1f8e8f6f129269/negotiation/message/schema/contract-schema.json#L156 should be "odrl:target"

The example for the catalog contains a `odrl:EQ`: https://github.com/International-Data-Spaces-Association/ids-specification/blob/b3ff872f7b482bf1cd81de3bc554ed699be7a298/catalog/message/example/catalog.json#L49 But ODRL only has a `odrl:eq`, which is correctly stated in the JSON Schema. Additionally, the `distribution` in this file is...

@schoenenberg @IgorBalog-Eng please check whether https://github.com/International-Data-Spaces-Association/ids-specification/pull/264 has solved your findings.

Proposal: Add a matrix to the linked file to map states explicitly to allowed messages: * non-normative * Columns: Start State | End State | Message/Transition | Actor | Comment/Example

Adding my two (three) cents: > the transfer size is not considered an issue, because the response could be gzipped content Should be something to consider in my view as...

From the discussion of today's (03.08.2023) call: * Can there be a non-Dataspace Participant? --> hardly... * Can there be more than one Authority? --> likely... * Can there be...

The work in this repository is finished and will be continued in a new repository under https://github.com/eclipse-dataspace-protocol-base/. Therefore, I am closing the PR here.

After the issues have been transferred, the content from this PR/branch can be continued there.

From a plain protocol perspective, this is not anything which needs to be specified by us _here_. However, we (the DSP working group) proposes to explain the relationship between Usage/Access/etc....

Therefore, I propose to remove the "V1 pre-release" label @ssteinbuss