Skip to content

docs(deployment): add Zero-Trust edge gateway deployment architecture (#103) - #101

Closed
showmemercy19-rgb wants to merge 1 commit into
AstralDeep:mainfrom
showmemercy19-rgb:docs/add-zero-trust-edge-deployment
Closed

showmemercy19-rgb wants to merge 1 commit into
AstralDeep:mainfrom
showmemercy19-rgb:docs/add-zero-trust-edge-deployment

Conversation

@showmemercy19-rgb

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Adds zero-trust edge gateway deployment guide.

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Oct 5, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

All applicable PR CI workflows passed for 7ed5a97.

Ready for maintainer code review.

@armstrongsam25 armstrongsam25 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for contributing. I reviewed the full diff against current main and the LETS constitution.

"Stateless ephemeral token verification" is misleading for this deployment: docs/operations.md requires durable peer nonce replay authority and independent production authority anchors; src/lets/executor.py uses a durable receipt claim store. The entire architecture is only two bullets. Please supply the actual gateway/warden/executor trust-boundary architecture and deployment/configuration steps, including durable anti-replay and fail-closed admission, and identify which TLS/mTLS controls are operator configuration versus enforced defaults.

Please expand this into complete, source-backed documentation before merge (constitution XI and XII). This head contains no measurable executable lines, so changed-line coverage is not applicable; that should be recorded explicitly in the PR. No tests or candidate code were executed during this review.

@armstrongsam25

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Closing after source-based triage of head 7ed5a97. The architecture submission consists only of mTLS and stateless-verification bullets. Stateless verification is misleading for the actual executor, which verifies and durably claims receipts, and the document supplies no gateway architecture, configuration or admission procedure. Existing operations documentation already specifies the real durable production boundary.

Evidence: durable executor claim; operations boundary; entire submitted architecture.

Triage criterion: unsupported-completion. Closing this unmerged PR does not close an unfulfilled task, delete the contributor branch, or award bounty points. A distinct substantive revision may be reviewed after reopening.

@armstrongsam25 armstrongsam25 added the triage:unsupported-completion Claimed completed scope is absent from the reviewed implementation or evidence. label Oct 5, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

triage:unsupported-completion Claimed completed scope is absent from the reviewed implementation or evidence.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants