Re: Comments to WD-01

>>> * 4.1.1 step #4: do we define any mandatory-to-implement algorithms
>>> or credential types? It's hard to get interoperability if we
>>> don't.
>> I believe the goal was to wait for initial implementations, and then
>> assess the state of algorithm support. Only one credential type is
>> supported for now, so that one is okay.
> Note that we could denote Credential.type as referring to the union of
> signature format, crypto (eg hash) algs, etc. And then we have agility by
> defining new Credential.types that represent different combinations of
> those things.
>
Looks good to me. Could you make this point explicitly in the spec?

Thanks,
     Yaron