RFC-0000: Proposal Title¶

Status: Draft
Date: YYYY-MM-DD
Authors:
Reviewers:
Related ADRs:
Related Issues or Pull Requests:

Summary¶

Provide a concise description of the proposed architectural, governance, documentation, or repository change.

Motivation¶

Explain the problem, limitation, risk, or opportunity that motivates this proposal.

Describe:

Current behavior or structure.
Why the current state is insufficient.
Who or what is affected.
Why the change is appropriate for the public AegisLayer architecture repository.

Goals¶

List the intended outcomes.

-

Non-Goals¶

List matters intentionally outside the scope of this proposal.

-

Background and Context¶

Provide the technical, governance, threat-model, or operational context necessary to understand the proposal.

Clearly distinguish among:

Existing repository decisions.
Assumptions.
Proposed changes.
Future possibilities.

Detailed Proposal¶

Describe the proposal in enough detail for informed review.

Include, where applicable:

Affected architecture layers.
Trust boundaries.
Identity and authority implications.
Policy and approval implications.
Connector or runtime effects.
Evidence and audit requirements.
Monitoring and incident-response effects.
Documentation, diagram, and ADR updates.

Security and Governance Analysis¶

Evaluate the proposal against the public architecture principles.

Identity and Authority¶

-

Least Privilege¶

-

Fail-Closed Behavior¶

-

Human Approval¶

-

Evidence and Auditability¶

-

Monitoring and Incident Response¶

-

Privacy and Data Handling¶

-

Threat Analysis¶

Identify relevant threats, abuse cases, and failure scenarios.

Threat or Failure	Potential Impact	Proposed Mitigation	Residual Risk

Alternatives Considered¶

Alternative 1¶

Describe the alternative and why it was not selected.

Alternative 2¶

Describe the alternative and why it was not selected.

Compatibility and Migration¶

Explain whether the proposal affects existing documentation, diagrams, ADRs, examples, workflows, or public interfaces.

Describe any migration, deprecation, or supersession plan.

Validation Plan¶

Describe how the proposal will be evaluated.

Possible validation methods include:

Architecture review.
Threat-model review.
Diagram validation.
Documentation build.
Link and Markdown checks.
Reference example or demonstration.
Security or abuse-case testing.
Independent reviewer feedback.

Acceptance Criteria¶

List objective conditions that must be satisfied before the proposal can be accepted.

[ ]

Rollout Plan¶

Describe how the change would be introduced, documented, and communicated.

Rollback or Rejection Conditions¶

State the conditions under which the proposal should be withdrawn, rejected, or reversed.

Intellectual Property and Public-Release Review¶

Confirm that the RFC does not intentionally disclose:

Credentials or secrets.
Customer or personal data.
Confidential infrastructure.
Security-sensitive deployment configurations.
Proprietary production controls.
Unapproved patent-sensitive implementation details.

Open Questions¶

-

References¶

-

Decision Outcome¶

Complete this section after review.

Outcome: Pending
Decision Date:
Resulting ADR:
Summary of Decision:

Change History¶

Date	Change	Author
YYYY-MM-DD	Initial draft