security-canon/SCOPE.md
tegwick 9320e6569f Record scoped Emergent knowledge owner review
Assistant: codex
Assistant-Model: gpt-6.1-sol
Assistant-Session: 01a10238-7ecc-78e2-903d-075f50e913cc
2026-10-03 17:34:43 +02:00

82 lines
4.1 KiB
Markdown

# SCOPE
Reviewed: 2026-10-03 (Europe/Berlin), following the completed vocabulary work and [SEC-ADR-001](docs/adr-001-securitycanon-boundary.md).
## Current repository scope
The repository publishes Mode of Authority draft 0.2.0 vocabulary artifacts,
mode/dimension catalogs, declared imports, a federation interface, cross-canon
mappings and orientation surfaces. SECURITY-WP-0001 is finished. The retained
v0.1 research draft is historical, not the current orientation artifact. There
is no service code; SEC-ADR-001 keeps validation in InfoTechCanon's service.
## Ownership and boundaries
Following [INTENT.md](INTENT.md), SecurityCanon occupies the Taxonomy layer and
owns security concept definitions and their cross-canon mappings. It imports
shared roots from InfoTechCanon and does not redefine them.
Out of scope, with the owner named:
- the CARING access governance standard and its Kubernetes RBAC benchmark,
the access-control model, and the identity model — **InfoTechCanon**, by
SEC-ADR-001 D1 and D3
- any CLI, HTTP API, or validation service — **InfoTechCanon's service surface**,
by SEC-ADR-001 D4; integration is via the canon-federation interface card
- security architecture and standards of record for the estate — NetKingdom
- authorization decisions — access-engine (runtime/product flex-auth)
- login, OIDC, MFA — key-cape / Keycloak
- credential lifecycle — secrets-engine over OpenBao custody; operational
routing and SSH certificates — ops-warden
- adversarial evidence and findings practice — whitehat-security
- shared artifact/ownership/mapping/profile mechanisms — InfoTechCanon
- consumer runtime state, enforcement, observation, and adoption evidence — the consumers
## Planned scope
The near-term deliverable is the architecture-layer vocabulary, not a migration.
| Deliverable | Task |
| --- | --- |
| Mode of Authority promoted to a checkable Tier-1 artifact | `SECURITY-WP-0001-T06` |
| Terminology separation from CARING and the access-control model | `SECURITY-WP-0001-T07` |
| Federation interface card declaring Auth Mode as an export | `SECURITY-WP-0001-T04` |
| Orientation surfaces: vocabulary card, design heuristic, disambiguation page | `SECURITY-WP-0001-T06` |
InfoTechCanon artifacts this canon **references rather than absorbs**:
| Path in info-tech-canon | Relationship |
| --- | --- |
| `infospace/standards/caring/` | implementation layer; imports the vocabulary |
| `infospace/models/access-control/` | owns Subject, Principal, IdentityReference |
| `infospace/models/identity/` | shared root; stays upstream |
| `infospace/models/security/` | boundary under review in `SECURITY-WP-0001-T02` |
| `infospace/models/devsecops/` | boundary under review in `SECURITY-WP-0001-T02` |
Open questions, answered under SECURITY-WP-0001 and no longer carried:
- the security and DevSecOps models stay in InfoTechCanon. Both were the only
remaining migration candidates and neither cleared the bar of demonstrably
helping both canons (SECURITY-DEC-2026-003);
- the small-saas profile's security artifacts stay whole in InfoTechCanon. A
SecurityCanon example references them by id across the federation interface
rather than relocating them;
- the Actor/Subject naming question, analysed in
[the implications note](docs/260920-actor-subject-implications.md) and decided
under `SECURITY-WP-0001-T07`: the on-behalf-of dimension is `AuthorityContext`
and no upstream concept is redefined.
Concept placement across the boundary — one owning canon and one import
direction per shared concept — is recorded in
[concept-placement.md](infospace/interfaces/concept-placement.md), with the
supporting survey of InfoTechCanon's existing authority vocabulary in
[infotechcanon-authority-survey.md](infospace/mappings/infotechcanon-authority-survey.md).
## Exclusions and evolution
No service surface is in scope, now or later: SEC-ADR-001 D4 settles that
SecurityCanon reuses InfoTechCanon's service rather than shipping its own. A
check that does not exist is a change request against InfoTechCanon.
A dedicated identity or personhood canon may eventually be right. It is deferred
and belongs to no current workplan.