Compare commits
3 commits
a87a794cc9
...
c5b55036d3
| Author | SHA1 | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
c5b55036d3 | ||
| 7ea90b8fda | |||
| 70b7244442 |
2 changed files with 51 additions and 0 deletions
15
INTENT.md
15
INTENT.md
|
|
@ -1,5 +1,20 @@
|
|||
# INTENT
|
||||
|
||||
> **NetKingdom layering review — 2026-08-28.** This repository's role was reviewed
|
||||
> against the NetKingdom IT-security layer model: **Taxonomy → Tooling → Engines →
|
||||
> Staff**, layered by determinism and by the kind of artifact each layer produces.
|
||||
> Findings and the argument behind them:
|
||||
> `gate-house/history/2026-08-28-security-layer-model-and-gate-house-recut.md`.
|
||||
> The model is `net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.1.md` (proposed),
|
||||
> ratified by `gate-house/decisions/decisions.md` GH-DEC-2026-001.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> The layer rule that binds every repository: **Staff never touches tooling
|
||||
> directly. It acts only through engine APIs.**
|
||||
>
|
||||
> **This repository is Engine — deterministic API for a modeled concept.** Add the layer label. The existing boundary contract (`net-kingdom/canon/standards/user-engine-boundary-contract_v0.1.md`) holds unchanged. Worth making explicit that user-engine supplies subject context as input to the authorization decision and never renders one.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> *This note records what should change. The body below is not yet adapted.*
|
||||
|
||||
> This file captures why this repository exists, the direction it is moving
|
||||
> toward, and the kind of system it is meant to become. It is intentionally
|
||||
> aspirational and stable, not a description of current implementation.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
36
intakes/intakes.md
Normal file
36
intakes/intakes.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
|
|||
# Intake records
|
||||
|
||||
## USER-IN-0001 — Declaration requested: state this repository's layer in INTENT.md (security layer model §11)
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
id: USER-IN-0001
|
||||
kind: intake
|
||||
title: 'Declaration requested: state this repository''s layer in INTENT.md (security
|
||||
layer model §11)'
|
||||
status: open
|
||||
origin: cross-repo
|
||||
origin_ref: net-kingdom security-layer-model_v0.4 §11
|
||||
priority: low
|
||||
owner: user-engine
|
||||
requested_by: gate-house
|
||||
proposed_layer: Engine
|
||||
description: 'A conformance sweep on 2026-08-28 found this repository has no layer
|
||||
declaration of its own. It carries a layering review note gate-house wrote into
|
||||
the top of its INTENT.md on 2026-08-24, and that note names a layer — but the words
|
||||
are gate-house''s, sitting above a line admitting the body is unadapted. Section
|
||||
11 has since been amended to say so explicitly: a layer stated about a repository
|
||||
by another repository is not a declaration; only the repository''s own file, in
|
||||
its own voice, conforms. Seven of fifteen estate-authored repositories have declared;
|
||||
this is one of the eight that have not, and the standard does not claim adoption
|
||||
on the basis of notes gate-house wrote. REQUESTED: state the layer in INTENT.md
|
||||
in your own voice, or contest it. PROPOSED LAYER: Engine. Users, accounts, memberships.
|
||||
Your boundary contract (net-kingdom/canon/standards/user-engine-boundary-contract_v0.1.md)
|
||||
holds unchanged; the only addition is making explicit that subject context is an
|
||||
input to the authorization decision and never a decision. Contesting is a real option
|
||||
and costs nothing — the three repositories that reviewed this model each returned
|
||||
a correction, two of which changed the standard. If the proposed layer is wrong
|
||||
for what this repository actually does, that is more useful to us than a label added
|
||||
to close a checkbox. Standard: net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.4.md.'
|
||||
created: '2026-08-28T21:02:12.760565Z'
|
||||
updated: '2026-08-28T21:02:12.760565Z'
|
||||
```
|
||||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue