CloudEvents deduplication and occurrence counts
Can CloudEvents id alone identify duplicate business actions across several sources?
CloudEvents 1.0.2 requires the source and id combination to identify a distinct event; a resent duplicate may retain that pair. The specification also permits one occurrence to produce more than one event. Event-level deduplication therefore needs source as well as id, while distinct event pairs alone do not establish distinct business actions.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- Actual producer uniqueness and business execution were not verified.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
CloudEvents source context and producer identity
Does a CloudEvents source URI identify exactly one authenticated emitting process?
CloudEvents 1.0.2 defines source as the context of the occurrence, which may include multiple producers. An external producer may create an event on behalf of a source that is unaware of CloudEvents. The source URI and its producer-defined semantics therefore do not by themselves identify or authenticate the individual process that emitted the event.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- Emitter identity and source ownership are not independently established.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
CloudEvents occurrence-time interpretation
Does CloudEvents time always represent the actual time the underlying action happened?
CloudEvents 1.0.2 makes time optional. If the occurrence time cannot be determined, a producer may use another time, such as the current time, provided producers sharing that source use a consistent determination policy. A timestamp must therefore be interpreted with that source policy; presence of time alone does not establish the actual action instant or cross-system order.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- Clock accuracy, fallback use and actual action time are unknown.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
CloudEvents envelope version versus data schema
Does CloudEvents specversion 1.0 identify the exact payload schema or specification patch version?
CloudEvents 1.0.2 requires specversion to be 1.0, retaining only major and minor numbers across specification patch changes. The separate optional dataschema URI identifies the payload schema, and incompatible schema changes should use a different URI. The envelope version therefore cannot establish a particular payload contract or the exact specification patch used by an implementation.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- Producer schema conformance and implementation patch level were not assessed.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
CloudEvents absent and explicit-null data
Does a CloudEvents envelope with missing data mean the same as an explicit null payload?
CloudEvents 1.0.2 permits an event without data. Its JSON format separately permits an explicit null JSON payload and distinguishes it from absence of the data member. Normalising both into one state can discard a documented distinction. Event-envelope validity therefore does not establish that an action payload was captured or retained.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- Whether data was omitted upstream, intentionally null or lost is unobserved.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
CloudEvents JSON decoding and original data
Should a CloudEvents JSON consumer parse a string-valued JSON data field again as a JSON document?
The 1.0.2 JSON format requires JSON-formatted data to be interpreted directly as a JSON value. A string-valued data member remains a JSON string and must not be decoded again as a JSON document. Binary values instead use data_base64, mutually exclusive with data. Missing datacontenttype is interpreted as application/json. Evidence interpretation must preserve those distinctions rather than infer a nested document from its appearance.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- No buyer decoder or archived payload was tested.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
CloudEvents HTTP envelope versus payload media type
Does an HTTP Content-Type header always describe only the CloudEvents event payload?
The 1.0.2 HTTP binding distinguishes binary, structured and batched modes. In binary mode, the HTTP body carries event data and Content-Type reflects datacontenttype, while other attributes use headers. Structured and batched modes place event metadata and data in the body using the event-format media type. Interpreting the header without the content mode can confuse envelope encoding with payload encoding.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- No actual transport message or decoder was inspected.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
CloudEvents negotiated batch scope
Can a sender use CloudEvents HTTP batched mode without receiver solicitation and mix specification versions?
The 1.0.2 HTTP binding forbids batched mode unless it is solicited and recommends allowing the receiver to choose the maximum batch size. A batch may be empty, but all its events must have the same specversion; other attributes, including datacontenttype, can differ. A shared HTTP envelope is not specified here as a transactional or all-events-processed guarantee.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- Actual processing, retries and transactionality remain application-specific.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
CloudEvents webhook processing acknowledgements
Does a CloudEvents HTTP webhook response of 202 establish that its event was processed?
The 1.0.2 Web Hooks specification assigns 202 Accepted when delivery is accepted but processing has not occurred or its status is unknown. It distinguishes processed responses and their optional details, while leaving error-detail payloads undefined. A 202 receipt therefore records acceptance, not completed business processing; later application evidence is needed to close the outcome.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- The specification does not independently verify any business result.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
CloudEvents subscription consent and authentication
Does the CloudEvents webhook OPTIONS handshake authenticate the sender or authorise its business action?
The 1.0.2 Web Hooks specification describes the validation handshake as abuse protection: the destination agrees to receive notifications so a sender cannot be directed at an unsuspecting endpoint. It explicitly does not establish authentication or authorisation context. The separate delivery access-control model must be assessed independently of that subscription consent.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- Actual credential validation and action permission were not inspected.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
CloudEvents original trace versus transport hops
Should ce-traceparent be replaced by each intermediary HTTP hop traceparent when forwarding a CloudEvent?
The distributed-tracing extension published with version 1.0.2 retains the starting trace across multi-hop event transmission; individual-hop tracing is carried by protocol-specific headers. For a single hop the contexts must agree. Middleware may add the extension when absent. Extension support is optional and these listed extensions have no official core standing, so implementations and their forwarding behaviour must be confirmed separately.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- No actual trace continuity or authenticated causality was verified.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
CloudEvents sequence interpretation and wraparound
Can a CloudEvents sequence value be sorted as an unbounded global event counter?
The sequence extension published with version 1.0.2 requires interpretation through sequencetype or an out-of-band agreement if that type is absent or unknown. Its defined Integer type uses string-encoded signed 32-bit values, starts at one, advances contiguously and wraps from the maximum to the minimum signed value. This optional, non-core extension therefore does not supply an unbounded global ordering or independently prove complete capture.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- Actual producer compliance, counter epoch and capture completeness are unknown.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
CloudEvents referenced payload lifetime
Does retaining a CloudEvent with dataref preserve its payload for a later audit?
The dataref extension published with version 1.0.2 permits a reference to externally stored data and allows middleware to replace embedded data with that reference. The referenced content may require separate access information and is only recommended to remain available long enough for consumers, not for an extended archive period. This optional, non-core extension is therefore not a durable payload-preservation receipt.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- Actual external payload integrity, lifetime and access were not tested.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
CloudEvents partition keys across intermediaries
Does an unchanged CloudEvents source guarantee that partitionkey remains stable through every hop?
The partitioning extension published with version 1.0.2 provides a grouping key for broker partitioning, but explicitly permits that value to change or disappear across hops because of protocol semantics or processing logic. The extension is optional and has no official core standing. A partition key therefore needs hop-specific provenance before it is treated as an end-to-end correlation identifier.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- Actual broker partition placement and cross-hop key continuity are unknown.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
in-toto command alignment warnings
Does successful in-toto verification establish that every reported command exactly matched expected_command?
The in-toto 1.0.0 specification describes expected_command as a suggested command and says a mismatch should produce a warning rather than verification failure. It also warns that command text can be forged after key compromise, including through environment changes. A passing artifact verification therefore does not establish exact command execution or a trustworthy runtime environment.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- Actual command execution and host integrity were not observed.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
in-toto step outputs and exit results
Does in-toto default verification check a step return-value and its stdout or stderr?
The in-toto 1.0.0 specification treats byproducts as opaque information that default verification does not verify. It recommends retaining stdout, stderr and return-value for further scrutiny, including by inspections. This differs from an inspection executed during verification, whose non-zero return value halts validation. Signed step byproducts therefore require an explicit review before they support a successful-step conclusion.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- The actual step result and diagnostic truth were not independently verified.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
in-toto verification can execute inspections
Is in-toto layout verification always a read-only signature check?
The in-toto 1.0.0 specification defines inspections as commands run on the final product during verification. Their run field spawns a process on the verifying system and produces inspection metadata before artifact rules are checked. A verification plan containing inspections therefore needs an execution-authority and environment review; signature verification alone does not make those commands harmless or read-only.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- No inspection command was executed by INDEX or assessed for safety here.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
in-toto unmatched artifact acceptance
Does an in-toto artifact rule list reject every artifact that its explicit rules did not match?
The in-toto 1.0.0 rule-processing specification has an implicit ALLOW * at the end of each artifact rule list. It recommends an explicit trailing DISALLOW * to reject artifacts left unconsumed by earlier rules. Successful verification without that closing restriction can therefore accept additional reported materials or products outside the intended explicit matches.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- Actual rule coverage and unreported filesystem content are unknown.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
in-toto ordered artifact consumption
Can a later in-toto DISALLOW rule reject an artifact already consumed by an earlier ALLOW rule?
The in-toto 1.0.0 specification applies artifact rules sequentially to a queue. An artifact successfully consumed by one rule is removed and cannot be consumed by later rules. DISALLOW tests remaining artifacts. Rule order therefore changes the effective boundary; a broad earlier allowance can remove an artifact before a later restriction examines it.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- No buyer rule execution or complete filesystem inventory was observed.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
in-toto MATCH and explicit rejection
Does an in-toto MATCH rule by itself fail verification when artifact hashes differ?
The in-toto 1.0.0 MATCH algorithm consumes source artifacts only when corresponding destination names and hashes match. Missing counterparts or unequal hashes remain unconsumed. The specification identifies DISALLOW and REQUIRE as the rules that can stop rule processing, so a MATCH non-match must be interpreted with the rest of the ordered policy rather than assumed to be an automatic rejection.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- Actual artifact origin and complete policy execution remain unverified.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
in-toto MODIFY and intended changes
Does an in-toto MODIFY rule prove that a required business or security fix was implemented?
The in-toto 1.0.0 specification defines MODIFY through artifact presence in both materials and products with different hashes. That structural condition records a content change, not the intended meaning or correctness of the change. A passing MODIFY check therefore needs separate acceptance evidence before it supports a claim that a particular defect or business requirement was resolved.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- Actual change correctness and security effect were not verified.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
in-toto layout expiry and verifier time
Can a correctly signed in-toto layout remain trusted after its expiry date?
The in-toto 1.0.0 specification says clients must not trust expired layout metadata and verifies expiry against the system date. A valid signature does not override that expiry check. A reliance record therefore needs the selected layout expiry and verifier clock context; it cannot infer current policy freshness from signature validity alone.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- Actual verifier clock and current owner policy are unknown.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
in-toto link reuse across layouts
Does a signed in-toto link prove that a step ran freshly for one particular layout verification?
The in-toto 1.0.0 specification does not bind link metadata directly to a particular layout and explicitly allows multiple layouts to use the same link during verification. A valid reused link can describe an earlier step. Fresh execution for a specific workflow therefore needs additional run identity and timing evidence beyond link acceptance.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- No actual execution time, replay policy or workflow run was verified.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
in-toto delegated sublayout boundaries
Does a parent in-toto layout directly receive every intermediate artifact from a verified sublayout?
The in-toto 1.0.0 specification represents a verified sublayout to its parent using the materials of the first sublayout step and products of the last. The parent rules apply to that boundary representation while sublayout verification checks the delegated steps. The parent summary therefore is not an inventory of every intermediate artifact or every inspection result within the delegated chain.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- Actual delegated execution and completeness of retained sublayout evidence are unknown.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
DSSE key identifiers and trusted signers
Can a DSSE keyid be used as authenticated evidence of the signer or signature algorithm?
DSSE 1.0.2 defines KEYID as an optional unauthenticated hint. It may narrow the set of keys to try but must not be used for security decisions. Verification instead checks the signature with acceptable trusted keys under cryptographic details agreed out of band. A matching keyid string therefore does not establish a trusted signer or algorithm.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- The actual trust store and key ownership were not verified.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
DSSE authenticated payload interpretation
Does a valid DSSE signature permit an application to interpret its payload under any JSON schema?
DSSE 1.0.2 signs both the payload bytes and the payload-type string through its pre-authentication encoding. The type is intended to identify encoding and meaning, with application-specific types recommended over generic application/json. Verification must reject unsupported types and parsing failures. A valid signature therefore does not justify substituting another schema or ignoring the authenticated type.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- Schema correctness, claimed facts and intended business authority were not verified.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
DSSE verified bytes and application use
Can a DSSE verifier reparse the original envelope after verification to obtain the application payload?
DSSE 1.0.2 requires the exact payload bytes verified to be the bytes passed to the application layer and explicitly forbids reparsing the envelope afterwards to retrieve the payload. A signature result over one decoded value cannot justify acting on another value obtained by a later parse. Evidence handoff therefore needs a stable binding between verification output and application input.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- No application implementation or parser differential was tested.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, deployment certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
CloudEvents webhook redirects and destination control
Can a CloudEvents HTTP receiver follow a redirect without changing the authorised destination?
The Web Hooks specification published with CloudEvents 1.0.2 forbids delivery responses from using 3xx redirects and forbids clients from following them. A redirect cannot be treated as a compliant continuation of this delivery contract. A replacement endpoint therefore needs separate configuration and authority review; the original subscription does not establish the new recipient.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- Actual client redirect handling and destination authority are unobserved.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
CloudEvents retired webhook destinations
When must a CloudEvents sender stop delivery after a 410 Gone response?
The Web Hooks specification published with CloudEvents 1.0.2 recommends 410 Gone when a delivery target is retired while the HTTP site still exists, and recommends that the sender stop further notifications. This is retirement guidance, not an acknowledgement that earlier events were processed or that stored payloads were deleted. Closure requires separate reconciliation of outstanding deliveries and retained data.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- Sender compliance and earlier event outcomes were not observed.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
CloudEvents rate-limit retry timing
Can a CloudEvents sender ignore Retry-After on a 429 response without violating its delivery contract?
The Web Hooks specification published with CloudEvents 1.0.2 recommends 429 Too Many Requests when a target exceeds a request-rate limit and requires that response to contain Retry-After. It requires the sender to respect that value and refrain from further requests until the indicated time. Immediate retry or a separately chosen shorter delay does not satisfy that delivery rule; throttling still does not establish a business outcome.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- No buyer retry scheduler or downstream effect was tested.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
in-toto signed inspection reuse
Can a signed in-toto sublayout inspection result be reused without rerunning its inspection command?
The in-toto 1.0.0 specification permits a sublayout inspection to be verified using presented link metadata signed with the same key that signed the sublayout. If that link is absent, the client must run the inspection while validating the sublayout. Acceptance can therefore rely on a previously signed result; it does not establish a fresh inspection of the current environment.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- Inspection freshness and current environment equivalence were not observed.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review
in-toto delegated link namespaces
Does in-toto disambiguate links from sublayouts that reuse the same step name?
The in-toto 1.0.0 specification places sublayout link metadata in a directory named from its sublayout link filename without the .link suffix. This separates step names that can be reused by independent layout authors. Flattening those files can lose the documented namespace distinction; a filename alone is not enough to attribute a link to the intended delegated step.
Documentation reviewed 2026-10-24. Primary source.
Boundaries
- No buyer metadata package or verifier file resolution was inspected.
- No verified business outcome, complete event capture, certification or authority to act.
- Buyer deployment testing, live runtime enforcement, certification or permission to act
- Expanded capabilities or licences for existing INDEX executables
Complete record JSON · Exact free preview JSON · Source review