Sylvain Duchesne
0d52c82ba9
Le reste du dossier docs/ était déjà en anglais ; ces trois fichiers avaient été rédigés en français par erreur. Traduction fidèle, sans changement de fond : mêmes sections, mêmes tableaux, mêmes blocs de code. Le retour à la ligne dur à 78 colonnes est levé (une ligne par paragraphe, convention du projet). Marqueurs épistémiques préservés et rendus aussi visibles : VERIFIED / INFERRED / CORRECTED / DIRECTION / GAP. Les citations verbatim de commentaires amont restent intactes. Deux incohérences de FOND signalées par la traduction et corrigées ici — elles étaient invisibles tant qu'on lisait chaque section isolément : - readcap-and-nuri-model, section « Caveats / gaps » : elle listait encore le fetch keyless comme hypothèse INFÉRÉE à confirmer, alors que le bloc CORRIGÉ du §4bis la déclare fausse et non constructible. Contradiction interne née de ma correction partielle. Conservée barrée plutôt que supprimée : l'hypothèse est intuitive et se reformera sinon. - incident write-loss : l'intro affirmait en fait établi que « l'écriture n'atteint jamais durablement le broker », alors que la réserve épistémique plus bas dit explicitement que l'alternative (perte d'écriture vs réhydratation à froid) n'est pas tranchée. L'intro ne rapporte plus que le symptôme observé. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_014GbGgNEHRejVKoREvFuDFg
33 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
33 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
# Vision & principles of the `@ng-eventually/client` polyfill
|
|
|
|
## Purpose
|
|
|
|
A **stand-in faithful in SHAPE** to NextGraph's future primitives. **Single** objective: that consumers (Festipod) be **coded against the CORRECT mental model** — the one of finished NextGraph — and have **NOTHING to rewrite** when NextGraph provides the real primitives.
|
|
|
|
## What the polyfill is NOT
|
|
|
|
A **security** layer. The **shared wallet** (everyone shares the same keys) plus the absence of real crypto make the emulation **infinitely less secure** than a wallet-per-user — it is a **dev/staging vehicle**, not a goal. **Insecurity is ACCEPTED.** An attacker who bypasses the emulation is not our problem.
|
|
|
|
## The only criterion: shape-fidelity, with RIGOR
|
|
|
|
The **exposed surfaces** must match the **exact SHAPE** of the future primitives, **even where enforcement is simulated**. The **failure mode to avoid**: exposing the **wrong shape** → the consumer codes against a model that will not exist → rewrite. The **ACL** inversion of ReadCaps was exactly that defect (an ACL where the real thing is **key possession**) — a lack of rigor.
|
|
|
|
## Simulating crypto to PREVENT shortcuts
|
|
|
|
Without a minimum of crypto simulation, damaging shortcuts get taken (reading the plaintext, falling back on ACLs). The polyfill therefore **simulates** the final mechanism, enough to hold this **invariant**:
|
|
|
|
> **A `did` (bare id, WITHOUT a ReadCap) and a NURI (WITH a ReadCap) are treated GENUINELY differently: the former does NOT allow reading the data; the latter is SUFFICIENT and REQUIRED.**
|
|
|
|
Concretely: a document's data is **stored encrypted** (per-doc symmetric encryption, however lightweight); the **ReadCap = the key**; without it, **decrypting/reading is impossible**. No ACL, no plaintext accessible "on the side". Obtaining read access = **holding the key**, exactly as in the target model.
|
|
|
|
## Shape consequences (to respect everywhere)
|
|
|
|
- **Everything is keys and URLs.** There is **no** notion of membership, role, or authorization list in the model: only symmetric and asymmetric cryptography, URIs, and who holds which key. Any exposed shape that looks like an ACL, a `member`, a `role`, or a `permission` is a **wrong shape**, whatever scaffolding one may otherwise read in the current state of NextGraph.
|
|
- **Reading = possession of the read key** (ReadCap = `{id, key}`). A bare id (a `did` without a ReadCap) does not read.
|
|
- **Writing = possession of the write key** — a key **distinct** from the read key, hence a distinct axis, but **possession too**.
|
|
- **Sharing a cap = sealing it to a recipient** (**durable** delivery, at share time — NOT an ACL re-declared every session).
|
|
- **Revocation = re-key** (new key; former holders keep the old state). Non-retroactive.
|
|
- **Cap-less reference** (naming/pointing without reading) **distinct** from the cap-bearing reference.
|
|
|
|
See `readcap-and-nuri-model.md` (the real model, verified in `nextgraph-rs`) and `briefs/2026-07-20-caps-emulation-alignment.md` (the alignment effort).
|