# Packaging & Signing — Key Decisions

Full detail lives in
`docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-28-flowfile-packaging-signing-design.md`.
These are the non-obvious calls worth remembering, several of which
reversed an earlier direction during design review:

- **No sidecar fronting ingestion.** A claim-check sidecar to bypass
  NiFi's content repo for large payloads was considered and rejected —
  all content must transit NiFi for routing/content-assurance controls.
  The external service's role is post-NiFi only: assembly, stall
  monitoring, cleanup, catalog DB maintenance.
- **No external signing service.** Vault Transit / a network-isolated
  signer was considered and rejected in favor of in-process signing
  (Bouncy Castle OpenPGP, key loaded via a Controller Service) to keep the
  architecture self-contained within NiFi. This is a deliberate
  non-repudiation trade-off, stated explicitly in the spec — key custody
  now depends on host-level protection (sensitive-property encryption,
  restricting which instances have the Controller Service) rather than
  network isolation.
- **Clear-sign (OpenPGP), not a bespoke signature format.** Chosen
  specifically because an operator on the far side of MR can verify an
  artifact by hand with stock `gpg --verify` and a public key — no custom
  SDK needed. Matters because MR already has a manual-operator recovery
  model for missing chunks (adopted from the Phat Files design).
- **HMAC was considered and rejected** as the integrity mechanism — it
  detects tampering but can't give non-repudiation, since every verifier
  necessarily holds the same shared secret and could in principle have
  forged the tag themselves.
- **Content + JSON trailer as one object, not two.** Chosen for
  end-to-end loss protection: two separate objects (content, manifest)
  have independent failure/lifecycle/replication paths that can diverge.
  A single completed write can't end up in a split state.
- **S3 attribute handover defers to an existing, established handover
  interface spec**, not this design's own invention — see
  [[open-external-dependencies]].
- **S3-vs-XFS storage backend split by file size is unresolved** — open
  question whether S3 can serve small files efficiently enough to drop
  the XFS tier entirely.