Skip to content

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Help with ParticipantID based policies #1078

Closed
panosprotopapas opened this issue Nov 8, 2024 · 1 comment
Closed

Help with ParticipantID based policies #1078

panosprotopapas opened this issue Nov 8, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@panosprotopapas
Copy link

Hi,

I've setup two productive sovity EDC CE and Ketycloak-DAPS. After creating client-ids and the keystores required in Keycloak I'm deploying the 2 connectors using these and everything seems to work fine. Connectors are requesting tokens from DAPS, can retrieve any assets with "accept-all" policies from each other and consume them.

However, I'm trying now trying to create an asset in "connector1" (id used as participant id and client id in Keycloak) with a policy restricted to only be consumed by "connector2", i.e., participant-id = connector2 (id used as participant id and client id in Keycloak). However, when doing this the asset does not appear on connector2's side when requesting connector1's catalogue.

If instead I create an asset with an "always true" access policy and a "only connector2" contract policy, the asset appears on connector2's side but the negotiation fails with a "Contract offer is not valid: Policy only_connector2 not fulfilled" error.

Am I missing something here? Any help on the matter, also in terms of ways to debug this would help.

Versions I've tried are:

EDC_IMAGE=ghcr.io/sovity/edc-ce:10.0.0
EDC_UI_IMAGE=ghcr.io/sovity/edc-ui:4.1.0

and

EDC_IMAGE=ghcr.io/sovity/edc-ce:10.4.2
EDC_UI_IMAGE=ghcr.io/sovity/edc-ui:4.1.63

Many thanks in advance.

@tmberthold
Copy link
Contributor

Hi, this is typically the case, when not the correct participant-id is used in the policies so the other connector can not see the offer (e.g. access policy in this example) or when the DAPS is not configured correctly (claim value).

In short:

The configured value of MY_EDC_PARTICIPANT_ID will now be validated via the DAPS:
The configured value of MY_EDC_PARTICIPANT_ID must coincide with the claim value referringConnector as configured for this Connector in the DAPS.

@sovity sovity locked and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 11, 2024
@tmberthold tmberthold converted this issue into discussion #1080 Nov 11, 2024

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants