Force upstream proposal #51
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Marcos Yacob <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Marcos Yacob <[email protected]>
MarcosDY
requested review from
evan2645,
amartinezfayo,
azdagron and
rturner3
as code owners
|
closing in favor of a new approach |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When using Upstream authority, intermediate certificates (our local authority) is not part of Bundle response,
because in bundle we keep UpstreamAuthority CA.
This is not happening with JWT authorities that are always part of our bundle.
To propagate intermediate (and bundle) taints add a new fields that we can use to return tainted keys to core code