@integraledger/lcp-placement-visa-tap 0.14.0 → 0.15.0

This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
Files changed (3) hide show
  1. package/CHANGELOG.md +6 -0
  2. package/README.md +11 -11
  3. package/package.json +2 -2
package/CHANGELOG.md CHANGED
@@ -1,5 +1,11 @@
1
1
  # @integraledger/lcp-placement-visa-tap
2
2
 
3
+ ## 0.15.0
4
+
5
+ ### Patch Changes
6
+
7
+ - @integraledger/lcp-binding-core@0.15.0
8
+
3
9
  ## 0.14.0
4
10
 
5
11
  ### Patch Changes
package/README.md CHANGED
@@ -62,17 +62,17 @@ claims were put to the spec, and all three hold:
62
62
  silently replaceable while *looking* bound to a reader, which is strictly worse than an honestly
63
63
  advertised header.
64
64
 
65
- **Drift against LCP §C.6: none material, and v1.38 closed the one wording gap.** v1.37 §C.6 did not name
66
- TAP's RFC 9421 signature parameters; v1.38 does — `created`, `expires`, `keyid`, `alg`, `nonce`, `tag`,
67
- noting `keyid` rather than `kid` and what `tag` distinguishes — which is the distinction this package draws
68
- below. The appendix is an illustration; the host spec is binding
69
- — the host's live specification is what binds. §C.6's description of the covered components, the body-object quartet and the nonce-match rule all
70
- survive the live read. Two notes for the record: the covered-component limitation is stated for the agent
71
- recognition signature in the specification and repeated for the reference implementation, so it is the
72
- protocol's shape and not one demo's shortcut; and no TAP extension registry or change-management process
73
- surfaced anywhere in the specification index, matching §C.6's own finding. TAP's only extensibility language
74
- is that "an Agent or a Payment Scheme may optionally define additional fields that could be part of the
75
- signature" — a coordinated arrangement, not a filing.
65
+ **Drift against LCP §C.6: none material, and v1.38 closed the one wording gap.** v1.37 §C.6 did not name TAP's
66
+ RFC 9421 signature parameters; v1.38 does — `created`, `expires`, `keyid`, `alg`, `nonce`, `tag`, noting
67
+ `keyid` rather than `kid` and what `tag` distinguishes — which is the distinction this package draws below.
68
+ The appendix is an illustration; the host's live specification is what binds.
69
+ §C.6's description of the covered components, the body-object quartet and the nonce-match rule all survive the
70
+ live read. Two notes for the record: the covered-component limitation is stated for the agent recognition
71
+ signature in the specification and repeated for the reference implementation, so it is the protocol's shape
72
+ and not one demo's shortcut; and no TAP extension registry or change-management process surfaced anywhere in
73
+ the specification index, matching §C.6's own finding. TAP's only extensibility language is that "an Agent or a
74
+ Payment Scheme may optionally define additional fields that could be part of the signature" — a coordinated
75
+ arrangement, not a filing.
76
76
 
77
77
  ## What is Tier B here, and why no manifest declares it
78
78
 
package/package.json CHANGED
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
1
1
  {
2
2
  "name": "@integraledger/lcp-placement-visa-tap",
3
- "version": "0.14.0",
3
+ "version": "0.15.0",
4
4
  "description": "Places an LCP reference into a Visa TAP request. The header sits outside TAP's signature.",
5
5
  "keywords": [
6
6
  "lcp",
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@
41
41
  },
42
42
  "homepage": "https://github.com/IntegraLedger/integra-protocol/tree/main/packages/placement-visa-tap#readme",
43
43
  "dependencies": {
44
- "@integraledger/lcp-binding-core": "0.14.0"
44
+ "@integraledger/lcp-binding-core": "0.15.0"
45
45
  },
46
46
  "devDependencies": {
47
47
  "@cfworker/json-schema": "4.1.1",