DO NOT MERGE; WILL REPLACE SHORTLY - polish 0036 prior to ACCEPTED status

[dhh1128]

Use "Holder" instead of "Prover" during issuance. Simplify to 1 diagram. Add hyperlinks. Mention where ack is triggered by ~please_ack decorator.

[dhh1128]

@swcurran and @jovfer, I would like your review on this. I spent some time polishing the RFC and made not-quite-trivial, but also not-materially-significant-for-an-implementation-thats-already-written, updates.

[dhh1128]

On most of my changes, I'm confident that I'm aligned with the intent of the authors, so the changes are just minor enhancements. The only case where that is not true is that I changed the "Credential Reject" message on the diagram to be a problem-report. This was because the running text of the RFC doesn't document "Credential Reject" as a message anywhere, and I think we intended that rejection to just be a problem report. But I could be wrong on that.

[kdenhartog]

I think this may have leaked from another PR. Do we want to keep this in here, or wait to merge this until the Decorators status change occurs to merge it?

[dhh1128]

Whoops! Yes, I'll take this out. Sorry about that.

[kdenhartog]

Thanks for adding these details in here so it's easier for people to reproduce the diagrams and make edits.

[kdenhartog]

These changes look very beneficial. Can we get the Decorators status change removed from here so it can be merged? It seems like this PR proposes the fixes requested by @llorllale , is that true?

[dhh1128]

There was already a previously merged PR from Stephen Curran that addressed some of @llorllale 's requested changes. I went a little bit further as part of some other things I was trying to accomplish; hopefully I kept George happy and didn't lose any of @swcurran 's goodness. :-)

[swcurran]

Looks good to me. @dhh1128 I think you should add yourself as an author on the RFC - these are substantial and helpful updates, although I agree that they do not impact the meaning of the RFC.

Agree with @kdenhartog that the two decorator files need to be removed from the PR.

[dhh1128]

Hold on. I'm going to create a new version of this PR that isn't polluted by the other PR that leaked in.

[kdenhartog]

There was already a previously merged PR from Stephen Curran that addressed some of @llorllale 's requested changes. I went a little bit further as part of some other things I was trying to accomplish; hopefully I kept George happy and didn't lose any of @swcurran 's goodness. :-)

Good to hear, I just found what you're referring to in the closed PRs. Good to see this is getting moved statuses.

[dhh1128]

Okay, this PR is now replaced by #189 . Closing this one.