Skip to content

Feat/webhook backfill redelivery - #134

Merged
ucekmez merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
feat/webhook-backfill-redelivery
Oct 4, 2026
Merged

ucekmez merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
feat/webhook-backfill-redelivery

Conversation

@ucekmez

@ucekmez ucekmez commented Oct 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

Scope

  • Spec / schema only
  • TypeScript package(s)
  • Python package(s)
  • Tests / CI
  • Docs / examples
  • Other: ___

Checklist

  • I read CONTRIBUTING.md and CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md.
  • Tests added or updated where appropriate (npm test / pytest in affected packages).
  • Breaking change to public API or normative spec? If yes, describe impact and note CHANGELOG.md / migration path.
  • Documentation updated for user-visible behavior.

Notes for reviewers

…onformance bars

Three manifest fields tied EEP conformance to specific vendor
ecosystems:

- `reputation` is OPTIONAL in `eep-manifest.json`, but the runner called
  `fail()` when a manifest lacked `reputation.contract` — an ERC-8004
  Ethereum registry. The conformance bar was stricter than the schema,
  and a publisher with no blockchain involvement could not reach Full
  conformance.
- `pqc_ready` and `x402_enabled` were in the schema's `required` array,
  so every EEP manifest had to declare a payment-rail flag whether or
  not it had anything to do with payments.

For a protocol positioning itself as neutral infrastructure and heading
to a standards body, hard-wiring one chain and one payment rail into the
conformance bar is a strategic liability rather than a bug.

Changes:
- `reputation` is reported, not required: present → pass with the
  contract, absent → skip with the reason.
- `pqc_ready` and `x402_enabled` move out of the schema's `required` and
  gain `"default": false`. Relaxing `required` never invalidates a
  document that was already valid, so every deployed manifest keeps
  validating. A value that is present but not a boolean still fails.
- §11.6 no longer says a non-PQC node "MUST set `pqc_ready: false` (not
  omit the field)". Omission and `false` are now equivalent, and neither
  affects conformance at any tier — PQC readiness is a capability a
  publisher advertises, not a bar it must clear.
- IETF draft updated to match, which the parity gate added in the
  previous PR caught automatically.

Refs: EEP audit 2026-08 finding A6
Signed-off-by: Ugur Cekmez <ucekmez@gmail.com>
fix(compliance-cli,schemas): stop making a chain and a payment rail conformance bars
Copilot AI balanced review requested due to automatic review settings October 4, 2026 12:00

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

@ucekmez
ucekmez merged commit 8cdd649 into main Oct 4, 2026
22 of 24 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants