approval-engine/examples/claim.valid.json

34 lines
1,009 B
JSON
Raw Normal View History

{
"schema_version": "0.1",
"kind": "approval-claim",
State pdp_digest explicitly; decline to publish a vocabulary mapping flex-auth asked whether this engine should publish an action/target mapping between the claim binding's vocabulary (secrets.kv.destroy, {"id": "lane-openbao-root"}) and a policy package's (destroy, lane:...), since their package makes no cross-check that a claim was approved for the action being decided. Answered no. A PIP asserting that one vocabulary's action means another's would author policy semantics it does not own, over vocabularies it does not own, and the failure mode is asymmetric: a wrong mapping silently accepts a claim approved for a different action, which is worse than no mapping. binding.pdp_digest is the correspondence and sidesteps vocabulary entirely -- it compares the PDP's own digest to the PDP's own digest, with no translation by anyone. Implemented the part that was ours. pdp_digest was emitted only when recorded, so a consumer could not distinguish "not issued against a decision" from "we forgot to look". It is now always present and null in that case, required-but-nullable in the schema, and documented as something a PEP on a privileged lane must refuse. This engine states the fact; enforcing the lane's policy stays with the consumer. Both published examples were already contradicting the updated schema by omitting the field -- the same fixture-versus-contract defect flex-auth hit twice this week and that secrets-engine implemented. Fixed both, made them cover the PDP-bound and unbound shapes so neither is inferred from the other, and added tests/test_examples.py to validate every example against the schema so the class cannot recur here. jsonschema added as a dev dependency. 94 tests pass (6 new). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvyJPAaVCGsVheVhcCwNND Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 411227@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: d566f6d3-bcaf-43c3-bc5e-3ddd0f64b535
2026-09-06 09:32:11 +02:00
"yields_to": "net-kingdom taxonomy request-claim schema (statute \u00a717; unassigned)",
"issuer": "approval-engine",
"approval_id": "3d1c0a8e-6b7f-4c21-9a0e-1f2b3c4d5e6f",
"state": "valid",
"valid_now": true,
"consumed": false,
"binding": {
"action": "secrets.kv.destroy",
State pdp_digest explicitly; decline to publish a vocabulary mapping flex-auth asked whether this engine should publish an action/target mapping between the claim binding's vocabulary (secrets.kv.destroy, {"id": "lane-openbao-root"}) and a policy package's (destroy, lane:...), since their package makes no cross-check that a claim was approved for the action being decided. Answered no. A PIP asserting that one vocabulary's action means another's would author policy semantics it does not own, over vocabularies it does not own, and the failure mode is asymmetric: a wrong mapping silently accepts a claim approved for a different action, which is worse than no mapping. binding.pdp_digest is the correspondence and sidesteps vocabulary entirely -- it compares the PDP's own digest to the PDP's own digest, with no translation by anyone. Implemented the part that was ours. pdp_digest was emitted only when recorded, so a consumer could not distinguish "not issued against a decision" from "we forgot to look". It is now always present and null in that case, required-but-nullable in the schema, and documented as something a PEP on a privileged lane must refuse. This engine states the fact; enforcing the lane's policy stays with the consumer. Both published examples were already contradicting the updated schema by omitting the field -- the same fixture-versus-contract defect flex-auth hit twice this week and that secrets-engine implemented. Fixed both, made them cover the PDP-bound and unbound shapes so neither is inferred from the other, and added tests/test_examples.py to validate every example against the schema so the class cannot recur here. jsonschema added as a dev dependency. 94 tests pass (6 new). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvyJPAaVCGsVheVhcCwNND Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 411227@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: d566f6d3-bcaf-43c3-bc5e-3ddd0f64b535
2026-09-06 09:32:11 +02:00
"target": {
"id": "lane-openbao-root",
"stage": "prod"
},
"actor": "agt-secrets-engine",
"principal": "bernd",
"purpose": "rotate-exposed-key",
State pdp_digest explicitly; decline to publish a vocabulary mapping flex-auth asked whether this engine should publish an action/target mapping between the claim binding's vocabulary (secrets.kv.destroy, {"id": "lane-openbao-root"}) and a policy package's (destroy, lane:...), since their package makes no cross-check that a claim was approved for the action being decided. Answered no. A PIP asserting that one vocabulary's action means another's would author policy semantics it does not own, over vocabularies it does not own, and the failure mode is asymmetric: a wrong mapping silently accepts a claim approved for a different action, which is worse than no mapping. binding.pdp_digest is the correspondence and sidesteps vocabulary entirely -- it compares the PDP's own digest to the PDP's own digest, with no translation by anyone. Implemented the part that was ours. pdp_digest was emitted only when recorded, so a consumer could not distinguish "not issued against a decision" from "we forgot to look". It is now always present and null in that case, required-but-nullable in the schema, and documented as something a PEP on a privileged lane must refuse. This engine states the fact; enforcing the lane's policy stays with the consumer. Both published examples were already contradicting the updated schema by omitting the field -- the same fixture-versus-contract defect flex-auth hit twice this week and that secrets-engine implemented. Fixed both, made them cover the PDP-bound and unbound shapes so neither is inferred from the other, and added tests/test_examples.py to validate every example against the schema so the class cannot recur here. jsonschema added as a dev dependency. 94 tests pass (6 new). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvyJPAaVCGsVheVhcCwNND Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 411227@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: d566f6d3-bcaf-43c3-bc5e-3ddd0f64b535
2026-09-06 09:32:11 +02:00
"digest": "sha256:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",
Implement GH-DEC-2026-008: declared PDP-path intent, enforced at issue Gate House ruled binding.pdp_digest is the binding correspondence on the GH-DEC-2026-003 path and is required there, having rejected a vocabulary mapping for the reasons we gave. It asked this engine to record the PDP digest at issue for approvals intended for that path, and to have the claim state which approvals those are rather than leaving it to the requester's memory. Schema v3 adds approvals.pdp_path. create() refuses pdp_path true without a pdp_digest, so an approval that would be unusable on the path fails at issue rather than at the protected side effect. The claim exposes binding.pdp_path, which makes it a guarantee rather than a hint: pdp_path true implies pdp_digest is non-null. Intent is declared and never inferred. A pdp_digest that happens to be present is not a declaration anybody made, so a recorded digest alone leaves pdp_path false, legacy rows migrate to false rather than being back-filled from their digests, and a successor inherits its predecessor's declaration. Approvals issued before the ruling stay usable by consumers in this engine's own vocabulary and are simply not usable on the PDP path -- the ruling's intended cost, stated as such. Schema, both published examples, a v2-to-v3 migration test asserting survivors keep their digest while declaring no path intent, and tests for refusal at issue, claim exposure, non-inference, and successor inheritance. 102 tests pass (8 new). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvyJPAaVCGsVheVhcCwNND Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 411227@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: d566f6d3-bcaf-43c3-bc5e-3ddd0f64b535
2026-09-06 14:51:23 +02:00
"pdp_digest": "sha256:3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f3f",
"pdp_path": true
},
"freshness": {
"observed_at": "2026-08-29T12:00:00+00:00",
"ttl_seconds": 30,
"not_after": "2026-08-29T12:00:30+00:00"
},
"validity": {
"not_before": "2026-08-29T11:00:00+00:00",
"expires_at": "2026-08-29T15:00:00+00:00"
},
"reason_code": "ok"
}