Typed UNISON and Non-Collapse Boundaries for Evidence and Authorization Systems

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶

This Internet-Draft will expire on 4 April 2027.¶

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

This document defines a typed correspondence model for comparing evidence and state representations without treating coordinate equality, semantic equivalence, scientific support, authorization, and execution as the same property.¶

2. Typed Comparison Spaces

Each required comparison declares source representations, a common comparison space, bridge functions, units, snapshot alignment, uncertainty treatment, and tolerance. Missing required bridge data is indeterminate rather than pass.¶

3. Non-Collapse

Observation does not imply evidence qualification; evidence qualification does not imply authorization; authorization does not imply execution. Each promotion requires an explicit procedure and artifact.¶

4. Comparison Relations

Profiles distinguish strict invariance, covariant transformation, quotient equivalence, and tolerance-bounded equivalence. A comparison MUST state which relation is being tested.¶

5. Selection

An empty authorized set yields no selection. A tie without a declared tie rule yields no implicit selection. Feasibility does not imply attainment or progress.¶

6. Status of Validation

The v0.1 reference implementation reports 40 passing boundary checks, including fail-closed empty-set, missing-representation, unit-mismatch, uncertainty, tie, promotion, and finite quotient checks. Independent formal proof is not claimed.¶

7. Security Considerations

This document defines an architectural model. Implementations MUST fail closed when required authority, evidence, or enforcement state is unknown. The model does not establish closure outside a declared enforcement boundary.¶

8. Privacy Considerations

Capability and evidence graphs can reveal topology, identity relationships, and operational context. Implementations SHOULD minimize disclosure and use scoped identifiers and digests where possible.¶

9. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.¶

Author's Address