RFC 0030: close the five LOW findings of the Draft's confirmation review in the normative text

Open
  • Is something wrong?
#284 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Maintainers usually reply within 1 day

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Newbie friendliness
35/100
Issue type
Documentation
Clarity
Mostly clear
Activity status
Active
Domain
documentation

Research direction

Start with the “Confirmation” section of the review record on #283, then compare its five findings with the normative text in §§2, 4, and 5. Resolve the alternatives noted for NC3 and NC4, and update the Spec 0.5.0 text so each finding is addressed.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

The confirmation review of RFC 0030 (Draft, #283) left five LOW findings. They are to be closed in the normative text proposed for Spec 0.5.0.

  • NC1 (§4 rule 4, the actor row):
    • Gap: the actor path skips step 11. A narrower link with the same subject and root actor could get an action's retained response, or trigger its read-back, for a source outside the link's own scope.
    • Fix: apply step 11's source and tool check on that row.
  • NC2:
    • Gap: §5 says the admission read carries the grant's owner, but §2's list of what the admission read names omits it. owner-removed and owner-unknown are also missing from the ordered refusals.
    • Fix: add the owner to §2's list, and place the two refusals in the order.
  • NC3:
    • Gap: a grant whose record has no owner is "used as today", so it stays outside the owner-removal rule indefinitely.
    • Fix: require the owner fields at adoption, or have posture report such grants.
  • NC4:
    • Gap: once a grant's owner is removed, the read-back cannot run, so pending action keys cannot be reconciled.
    • Fix: state that the outcome stays unknown, or let a quarantined grant serve only the read-back.
  • NC5 (§4 rule 4, the subject row):
    • Gap: "unless the subject has been removed" does not say how the gateway learns of the removal on this path.
    • Fix: name the read, for example the issuing host's subject standing.

The source is the "Confirmation" section of the review record on #283. Refs #280.

Dominant language
Python
Stars
5
Forks
6
Avg merge
6h 15m
Merged PRs (30d)
98

Getting set up

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

More from Judgment-Pack/judgment-pack-spec

All issues in Judgment-Pack/judgment-pack-spec

Similar issues

More Python issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.