Triage the older secrets-engine inbox: record platform waits and railiance-clock
railiance-platform e82bb289 recorded against SECRETS-WP-0006-T05 (explicit wait on T04 serving; CCR-2026-0003 is provenance only). 29cccf8a recorded against SECRETS-WP-0008-T06, including the open tenant:coulomb vs tenant:platform question for the service JWT, left for an owner session. railiance-clock's review request opened as SECRETS-IN-0003. The intelligence-radar messages are superseded by SECRETS-WP-0010-T03 (done 2026-09-16) and answered by pointer. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 63291@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 8bd77868-ca68-4f49-bb1e-d539ecc0d703
This commit is contained in:
parent
8a48cb05df
commit
377ec06d69
3 changed files with 54 additions and 1 deletions
|
|
@ -76,3 +76,31 @@ description: >-
|
|||
complete, and changing a documented local checkout path ahead of the move
|
||||
would document a path that does not exist yet. Close by updating that one
|
||||
line when flex-auth confirms the rename has landed.
|
||||
|
||||
## SECRETS-IN-0003 — railiance-clock: consumer review of the time-sample profile and adoption condition
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
id: SECRETS-IN-0003
|
||||
kind: intake
|
||||
title: 'railiance-clock: review signing custody, rotation and lifecycle-consumer adoption condition'
|
||||
status: open
|
||||
origin: cross-repo
|
||||
origin_ref: hub messages f90b9f17 and 302291b5 (railiance-clock, 2026-09-14)
|
||||
priority: low
|
||||
owner: secrets-engine
|
||||
requested_by: railiance-clock
|
||||
resolution: ''
|
||||
description: >-
|
||||
railiance-clock published its foundation (commit 0a144b6, RCLK-WP plans) and a
|
||||
candidate time-sample profile (commit 7af595b, specs/sample-profile-v0.1.md:
|
||||
JWS Compact ES256, decimal-string ns, pinned authority/environment/policy,
|
||||
bounded elapsed intervals). Asked of secrets-engine: review signing custody
|
||||
and library compatibility for ES256 JWS, rotation/revocation and independent
|
||||
bootstrap, and return a linked lifecycle/consumer adoption condition
|
||||
(RCLK-WP-0002-T04, RCLK-WP-0004 propose a future server-side clock contract).
|
||||
Nothing is adopted or unblocked by it: the existing refusal of shifted
|
||||
validation clocks stands, and no key, policy or OS clock changed. Recorded at
|
||||
triage 2026-09-21 and not reviewed there: a custody and adoption review is
|
||||
owner design work, not a cheap reply. No secret values requested or sent.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -199,6 +199,16 @@ priority: high
|
|||
state_hub_task_id: "fb103f1e-2ff7-5de5-9a2c-191a19c43542"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Inbox triage 2026-09-21. railiance-platform `e82bb289` (2026-09-09) answered
|
||||
the openrouter-llm-connect first-lane request with an explicit **wait on T04
|
||||
serving**: no approval object path and no scoped attended authority yet, because
|
||||
the canonical `action=apply` ActionAuthorization does not exist and llm-connect
|
||||
has not confirmed ESO health. It accepts the apply shape and rollback
|
||||
containment in principle, confirms CCR-2026-0003 is provenance and not
|
||||
executable authorization for a native AppRole, and will name the approval path
|
||||
and attended window together once T04 serves and llm-connect confirms. Keep
|
||||
`forgejo-admin-api-token` last. Nothing changes here; T05 stays `wait`.
|
||||
|
||||
Progress 2026-09-03. Re-rendered guarded plans on the post-hardening engine.
|
||||
Every admitted lane is still `kv-mount-check` + exact-path read policy +
|
||||
bounded AppRole. First live candidate is `openrouter-llm-connect` (narrowest
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -339,7 +339,22 @@ does not read `BAO_TOKEN` on failure. `--bootstrap-token-file` is a named
|
|||
break-glass provider with `auth_break_glass` evidence.
|
||||
|
||||
The platform-owned OpenBao JWT mount/role is still unpublished, so auto keeps
|
||||
bootstrap/env and this task remains `wait`. Companion §7 / statute §3.4: an
|
||||
bootstrap/env and this task remains `wait`.
|
||||
|
||||
Inbox triage 2026-09-21. railiance-platform `29cccf8a` (2026-09-09): status,
|
||||
not a contract. Their side is RPF-WP-0035-T02 (design
|
||||
`docs/credential-lane-designs/secrets-engine-service-jwt.md`), still `wait`.
|
||||
Designed: role/audience `secrets-engine-openbao`, subject
|
||||
`service:secrets-engine`, token policy `secrets-engine-login-self`, five-minute
|
||||
budget, login-only. KeyCape issuer `https://kc.coulomb.social` and its JWKS are
|
||||
now confirmed live, so the remaining blocker is this registration's issued
|
||||
claims, consumer readiness, an approved source and attended apply authority.
|
||||
**Open question for secrets-engine, not answered in the triage session:** the
|
||||
JWT design says `tenant:coulomb`, while the approval chain resolved to
|
||||
`tenant:platform` (decision `5ed3fb35`) and approval-engine compares tenant by
|
||||
exact string. Which tenant the OpenBao service identity carries is a design
|
||||
decision for an owner session; platform will correct its design before the
|
||||
role exists once told. A service login grants no lane mutation authority. Companion §7 / statute §3.4: an
|
||||
agent holds no long-lived credential of its own. Authority is per task,
|
||||
time-bounded, and attributable to the principal it acts for.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue