name the mint, not the publisher, as the writer of the client secrets
Finishes the sweep of prose that said the publisher unit writes or carries the OIDC client secrets: rust docs, nix comments and option descriptions, test names and docs.
This commit is contained in:
parent
05665c05f3
commit
2fc63d844b
1 changed files with 52 additions and 52 deletions
|
|
@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ let
|
|||
# no other collector shares it. The module requires a value.
|
||||
forwarderTelemetryPort = 8901;
|
||||
# A client this container registers and mints for itself. Its secret goes
|
||||
# through the store like every other forwarder's: the publisher carries it
|
||||
# through the store like every other forwarder's: the mint creates it
|
||||
# there and the forwarder reads it back under the same identity.
|
||||
forwarderClient = {
|
||||
id = forwarderClientId;
|
||||
|
|
@ -227,8 +227,8 @@ let
|
|||
accessTokenSignedResponseAlg = "RS256";
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
# The secret publisher runs in this container, beside the mint whose secrets
|
||||
# it copies. It needs a store identity, and a reader is defined by holding a
|
||||
# The mint runs in this container and creates its secrets in the store. It
|
||||
# needs a store identity, and a reader is defined by holding a
|
||||
# certificate the store accepts, never by standing next to it — the rule
|
||||
# ./swarm-bao.nix's `deploy.bao` options block states in full.
|
||||
# `deploy.bao.enable` here would be the co-location assumption itself.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue