Remove the numerical error codes to be in sync with the VCDM specification

[iherman]

Following up on w3c/cid#134 (comment):

• Removed the error codes from the processing errors (both in the spec and in the vocabulary). I have also synched with the corresponding VCDM spec which require some terms in the error.
• In the vocabulary, the links to the controller document was still present for the error code; I have changed that.

---

Preview | Diff

[iherman]

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2025-01-08

• no resolutions were taken

View the transcript

3.1. Remove the numerical error codes to be in sync with the VCDM specification (pr cid#140)

See github pull request cid#140.

Brent Zundel: Remove numerical error codes to be in sync with the VCDM spec.

Manu Sporny: +1 to this change.

Brent Zundel: It does what it says. It removes the error codes while retaining the names of the error codes. Anyone want to say we don't want to do this, please say so, can take comments briefly, etc. if needed.

Ivan Herman: Just remarking that there is a sister PR in the DI spec which does the same. It also makes the changes in the vocab definition file. These two PRs should go hand-in-hand.

See github pull request vc-data-integrity#327.

Manu Sporny: Yes, +1 -- we made a decision in the group to remove the error codes in the group and this is just Ivan making sure we follow that guidance.

[dlongley]

Minor but important clean up then +1. I see VCDM's problem details isn't in sync with bitstring status list either, looks like we should just loosen VCDM and then everything will be in sync and will also match the RFC requirements (advisory only), see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9457#name-title.

[iherman]

@msporny

I'm fine w/ what @dlongley says above -- @iherman, if you're fine with that approach, can you please revert your change to MUSTs?

I have reversed the SHOULD/MUST change; as I said, I am fine either way, and my only concern was consistency. I have also reversed that part of the PR in CID: w3c/cid#140.

Furthermore, I have also raised a separate PR in the VCDM repo: w3c/vc-data-model#1587. That PR would bring the VCDM spec in sync with DI and CID. Indeed, the arguments in this repo, namely #327 (comment) and #327 (comment) apply to VCDM as well.

If not, can we make the SHOULD/MUST changes into a separate PR. If this PR just removes the numerical error codes, that's non-controversial and we can get that in sooner than later.

I have a separate PR in the VCDM now: w3c/vc-data-model#1587. If that PR is accepted, then we are all set. If it is rejected, then separate PRs for DI and CID will have to be raised to sync up with VCDM (if we come to that, I am happy to do them). In any case, this PR (and its CID equivalent) are ready to be merged imho.

[iherman]

@msporny I believe this PR can be merged right away, it is the counterpart of w3c/cid#140 (which has been merged).

[msporny]

Editorial, multiple reviews, changes requested and made, no objections, merging.