docs: add a compliance / integration-layer responsibilities guide#450
Open
dhensby wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
docs: add a compliance / integration-layer responsibilities guide#450dhensby wants to merge 1 commit into
dhensby wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
dhensby
force-pushed
the
docs/compliance-guide
branch
from
4f40059 to
76e3c3b
Compare
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Adds a new guide page that documents which OAuth 2.0 / RFC 6749 compliance requirements are the responsibility of the HTTP integration and deployment layers (vs. what the core library already enforces), and links it from the VitePress Guide sidebar.
Changes:
- Add
docs/guide/compliance.mdwith an integration/deployment responsibility checklist and RFC citations. - Update the VitePress sidebar to include a “Compliance” entry under Guide.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| docs/guide/compliance.md | New compliance / responsibilities guide with RFC references and a conformance checklist. |
| docs/.vitepress/config.mts | Adds the new guide page to the Guide sidebar navigation. |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
Document the RFC 6749/6750 requirements that fall on the integration (Express/Koa/...) and deployment layers rather than this framework-agnostic core: TLS, supporting GET on the authorization endpoint, sending the response/redirect, brute-force/rate limiting, CSRF/state, resource-owner authentication and secure model storage. Includes a conformance checklist and a summary of what the library already handles, linked from the guide sidebar. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
dhensby
force-pushed
the
docs/compliance-guide
branch
from
a5bd66f to
64ebb4d
Compare
This file contains hidden or 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
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.
What
Adds a Compliance & your responsibilities guide (
docs/guide/compliance.md), linked from the Guide sidebar.Closes #79.
Why
#79 asked us to document the RFC MUSTs that can only be satisfied by the HTTP integration layer / deployment, not by this framework-agnostic core (jankapunkt: "We should create a documentation like COMPLIANCE.md for that"). This gives implementers a single conformance checklist instead of having to re-read RFC 6749 §10.
Contents
application/x-www-form-urlencodedtoken endpoint, and RFC-compliant responses (error/error_description,Cache-Control: no-store,WWW-Authenticate).GETon the authorization endpoint (§3.1), sending the response/redirect, brute-force/rate limiting (§2.3.1), CSRF +state(§10.12), resource-owner authentication, and secure model storage (§3.1.2/§10).Docs only — no code change.
npm run docs:buildpasses (no dead links).