Christine Lemmer-Webber

Heya @kephas! You're right in that "language-style" and "actor-style" ocaps, the way you'd build in caveats is to build caretaker proxy objects that live and redirect requests for you. In...

Does that answer your question enough to close this @kephas ?

Cool... so it sounds like "caveats" just gives us a general, extensible version of such restrictions the way Zebra Copy had.

Oh... that's true! The main way in which it's tricky possibly is an implementation detail... the ld-proofs capabilityInvocation verification calls ld-proofs verification on the capabilityDelegation proofs, but doesn't currently pass...

So we have to be careful about "request policy" / "advisory policy" things that *ask* a good participant to behave correctly. That can still be useful, but it's important to...

@trwnh That is indeed similar to the capability perspective. The important idea here is that the actor you receive may not actually be the full most powerful reference to the...

That's the right place to add Errata, we just haven't added any yet :) The expected behavior is really, the server MUST deliver messages posted to outbox according to the...

There's a way we can do things that isn't backwards incompatible involving proofs/signatures with a certain proofPurpose. It's been a long day for me but I'll write this up tomorrow.

The right approach which degrades gracefully is to add a new proof node with a proofPurpose that says whether or not a post is signed off on as a valid...

Unfortunately, while I'm sympathetic to the problem, I don't think this is a good idea. - As said earlier in the proposal, spinning up puppet accounts is too easy for...