flex-auth/examples/tenant-engine/protected_system_manifest.yaml
tegwick 49de2f40ff
All checks were successful
CI Smoke / host-smoke (push) Successful in 0s
CI Smoke / container-smoke (push) Successful in 3s
FLEX-WP-0008 T01-T02: tenant-engine resource/action vocabulary + policy package
docs/tenant-engine-{resource-namespace,action-vocabulary}.md: four actions
(tenant.create, tenant.role.grant, tenant.role.revoke, tenant.plan.assign)
matching tenant_engine/src/tenant_engine/authz.py's _RESOURCE_TYPES mapping
exactly. No resource_manifest.yaml -- tenant-engine's resources are created
dynamically, unlike ops-warden's fixed SSH-certificate inventory; documented
as a deliberate deviation.

examples/tenant-engine/: protected_system_manifest.yaml, subject_manifest.yaml
(one registered caller: tenant-engine's own service identity),
policy_package.md (Rego rules + embedded tests), policy_fixtures.yaml (8
allow/deny pairs), assembled registry_snapshot.json, two standalone
check_request examples, README.

Design decision made explicit in the workplan: operator/service-identity
authorization (one known subject, four known actions), not aal2+assurance +
tenant-capability-role checking -- CheckRequest carries no assurance claim
yet (TEN-WP-0003 already flagged actor as a plain request-body field, not a
real auth context), and a tenant's capability roles are the tenant's own
state, not a property of who may call tenant-engine's admin API. Revisit
once KEY-WP-0005 gives callers a real assurance-bearing identity.

Verified for real: built ./cmd/flex-auth, ran test-policy (6 tests + 8
fixtures, all pass), load-registry, check against both example requests.
Then ran a live flex-auth serve with this exact registry+policy and pointed
tenant-engine's real, unmodified FlexAuthCheckClient/FlexAuthWriteAuthorizer
at it over real HTTP: unknown subject -> 403, tenant-engine -> 201. go test
./... still green across the whole repo.

T03 (live-lookup context adapter for other protected systems) stays open --
new Go adapter package, tracked separately.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-23 23:05:57 +02:00

77 lines
1.6 KiB
YAML

id: tenant-engine
name: Tenant Engine
resource_types:
- name: tenant
scope_level: Resource
planes:
- Identity
- Audit
metadata:
description: A tenant record (existence, onboarding grouping).
- name: role-grant
scope_level: Resource
planes:
- Identity
- Policy
- Audit
metadata:
description: A capability-role grant or revocation (PLTF/IAM/VEN/CUS).
- name: plan-assignment
scope_level: Resource
planes:
- Identity
- Audit
metadata:
description: A tenant's plan/subscription assignment (by reference id).
actions:
- name: tenant.create
capabilities:
- Create
- Audit
planes:
- Identity
- Audit
exposure_modes:
- Metadata
metadata:
required_context: []
- name: tenant.role.grant
capabilities:
- Grant
- Audit
planes:
- Identity
- Policy
- Audit
exposure_modes:
- Metadata
metadata:
required_context: []
- name: tenant.role.revoke
capabilities:
- Revoke
- Audit
planes:
- Identity
- Policy
- Audit
exposure_modes:
- Metadata
metadata:
required_context: []
- name: tenant.plan.assign
capabilities:
- Bind
- Audit
planes:
- Identity
- Audit
exposure_modes:
- Metadata
metadata:
required_context: []
caring_profiles:
- caring-0.4.0-rc2
metadata:
flex_auth_contract: protected-system-v0
boundary_contract: net-kingdom/canon/standards/tenant-engine-boundary-contract_v0.1.md