Skip to content

[Proposal] Say that ACS conformance does not establish human authorization #136

Description

@rocklambros

The problem

The conformance chapter says what ACS-Core guarantees technically. It does not say that a conformance claim is silent on whether a human authorized anything. A deployment whose policy was written by automation and whose every ASK is answered by a service is fully conformant and produces a complete audit chain, so a reader can take the claim as evidence of human oversight that ACS never checked.

Why the wire has to carry it

Nothing new goes on the wire. This is scope language in docs/spec/conformance.md, together with a rule that a deployment must not represent its conformance as evidence that a human authorized a specific action.

Which constituencies this affects

  • Observed Agent implementers
  • Guardian implementers
  • Policy authors
  • Auditors and incident responders
  • Platform and harness vendors
  • Enterprise deployers

Alternatives considered

Leave it to docs/concepts/trust.md, which draws the asserted versus attested line but says nothing about the conformance claim itself. Or wait for the Policy Attestation profile in v0.2, which leaves v0.1.0 silent while deployments are making the claim now.

Discussion link

No Discussion exists. PR #24 carries the argument, and @jrcrittenden wrote it. GitHub will not let us assign an issue to someone without repository access, so this names him here instead.

Current Priority Scope

Feeds conformance evidence

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    scope:in-focusFeeds the ninety-day committed outcome. Maintainers onlystatus:acceptedIn the backlog. Maintainers onlytype:proposalNew feature or request

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions