tegwick
6d0dfc8010
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
|
||
|---|---|---|
| approval_engine | ||
| deploy | ||
| docs | ||
| examples | ||
| history | ||
| intakes | ||
| schemas | ||
| tests | ||
| workplans | ||
| .custodian-brief.md | ||
| .gitignore | ||
| .repo-classification.yaml | ||
| AGENTS.md | ||
| cadence.yaml | ||
| Containerfile | ||
| INTENT.md | ||
| layer.yaml | ||
| Makefile | ||
| pyproject.toml | ||
| README.md | ||
| SCOPE.md | ||
| WORK-RECORDS.md | ||
approval-engine
The approval as a durable, authenticated, consumable object — issued before an action, verified at the moment of use, and provably not replayable.
An Engine, role PIP, in the NetKingdom security layer model (statute v0.7,
accepted; operative form net-kingdom/SECURITY-COMPANION.md). It answers one
question, totally and decidably:
Is this approval valid right now — for this exact action, target, actor, and purpose — and has it already been used?
It does not decide whether the action is permitted. That is access-engine,
which stays NetKingdom's only policy decision point. An approval is one input to
that decision.
Deliberately small, boring, and strict: atomic supersession and single
consumption are what make Canon test T-06 — Approval Replay passable.
Flexibility here would be a defect. Graded, evidence-based progression belongs to
maturity-engine; the two engines are deliberate opposites.
See INTENT.md and SCOPE.md. Declaration: layer.yaml.
Claim: docs/approval-claim.md.
Consume: docs/approval-consumption.md.
Caller auth: docs/caller-authentication.md.
PEP sequence: docs/pep-integration.md.
Origin: flex-auth FLEX-DEC-2026-001, raised while assenting to the security
layer model.
make test
approval-engine migrate --db approvals.sqlite
approval-engine verify --db approvals.sqlite
approval-engine serve --db approvals.sqlite \
--jwt-issuer https://auth.netkingdom.local \
--jwt-audience approval-engine \
--jwks-url http://key-cape.sso.svc.cluster.local:8080/jwks
POST /v1/approvals/{id}/consume implements GH-DEC-2026-003: the PEP
atomically spends the approval before the protected side effect. Same-digest
retries are idempotent; a different digest conflicts.
Production operations, caller scopes, audit delivery, and PEP sequencing are
documented in docs/storage-operations.md, docs/caller-authentication.md,
docs/outbox-contract.md, and docs/pep-integration.md. The checked-in
StatefulSet deliberately refuses production startup without a migrated
persistent store, KeyCape JWT verification, and authenticated audit delivery.