Status
This document defines the conformance philosophy underlying the TRQP
Conformance Suite.
It is an independent, implementation-focused interpretation framework
and does not modify or supersede the Trust Registry Query Protocol
(TRQP) specification.
1. Purpose
This document establishes the conceptual, evidentiary, and assurance
model used to evaluate whether an implementation of TRQP conforms to
defined behavioral expectations.
The objectives are to:
- Enable interoperable deployments\
- Reduce semantic ambiguity\
- Support reproducible evaluation\
- Provide structured evidence artifacts\
- Align conformance interpretation with established conformity
assessment terminology
2. Normative Language
The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL
NOT,
SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL
in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
When used in this document:
- MUST / SHALL indicate absolute requirements for conformance
under a defined profile.\
- SHOULD indicates recommended behavior that strengthens
interoperability but may be profile-dependent.\
- MAY indicates optional behavior not required for baseline
conformance.
Normative requirements are interpreted within the scope of a defined
conformance profile.
An implementation SHALL be considered conformant under a given profile
if:
- It satisfies all normative requirements assigned to that profile.\
- It demonstrates behavior consistent with defined semantic
expectations.\
- It generates verifiable evidence artifacts sufficient to
independently validate observed behavior.
Conformance SHALL be evaluated per profile.
TRQP deployments may operate under varying assurance requirements.
Profiles SHALL define:
- Mandatory vs optional requirements\
- Security enforcement expectations\
- Determinism constraints\
- Governance metadata obligations\
- Evidence artifact requirements
Higher-assurance profiles SHALL inherit obligations of lower profiles
unless explicitly stated otherwise.
4. Determinism Principle
4.1 Deterministic Behavioral Requirement
For a given registry state and identical query inputs, a conformant
implementation SHALL produce consistent semantic decisions.
This requirement applies to:
- Authorization decisions\
- Recognition statements\
- Context-dependent evaluations
4.2 State Reference Requirement
High-assurance profiles SHALL require:
- Declaration of a
state_reference\
- Controlled or reproducible fixture conditions\
- Ability to reproduce identical outcomes under identical state
Implementations that cannot demonstrate stable state reference SHALL NOT
claim deterministic conformance.
5. Assertion-Based Evaluation
Each normative requirement SHALL:
- Be assigned a stable requirement identifier\
- Be mapped to one or more executable test cases\
- Define explicit pass/fail conditions\
- Specify required evidence artifacts
An implementation SHALL NOT be considered conformant if required
evidence artifacts are incomplete, unverifiable, or inconsistent with
observed behavior.
6. Evidence Model
6.1 Evidence Artifacts
Conformance evaluation SHALL produce structured artifacts including:
- Canonicalized request and response payloads\
- HTTP status codes and headers\
- Validation results against schema\
- Requirement-level verdicts\
- Cryptographic hashes of artifacts
6.2 Integrity Protection
High-assurance profiles SHALL require:
- Manifest hashing\
- Digital signature of evidence bundles\
- Verifiable linkage between test results and state reference
The purpose of evidence artifacts is independent verification.
7. Verdict Model
Each test case SHALL result in one of:
- PASS\
- FAIL\
- INCONCLUSIVE\
- NOT_APPLICABLE
A profile-level conformance determination SHALL be derived from
requirement-level results.
If any mandatory requirement fails, the implementation SHALL NOT be
considered conformant under that profile.
8. Error Handling Expectations
Conformant implementations SHALL:
- Return structured error responses for invalid inputs\
- Avoid internal server errors for predictable client misuse\
- Provide sufficient error detail to enable corrective action without
exposing sensitive internal state
Error semantics SHALL form part of conformance evaluation.
9. Security and Assurance Profiles
Security requirements SHALL be defined by profile.
Higher-assurance profiles MAY require:
- Strong client authentication\
- Replay protection\
- Timestamp validation\
- Transport-layer enforcement\
- Audit logging consistency
Security controls SHALL be evaluated where mandated by profile.
This conformance philosophy aligns with ISO/IEC conformity assessment
concepts as follows:
- Conformity Assessment: The demonstration that specified
requirements relating to a product, process, or system are
fulfilled.\
- Specified Requirements: Normative requirements defined by TRQP
and associated profile definitions.\
- Evidence: Objective evidence collected during testing and
recorded in structured artifacts.\
- Verification: Confirmation, through provision of objective
evidence, that specified requirements have been fulfilled.\
- Validation: Confirmation that semantic behavior meets intended
operational expectations.\
- Assurance Level: A defined profile specifying the rigor of
evaluation.
This framework does not establish certification authority structures.
It defines a structured verification mechanism consistent with
conformity assessment principles.
11. Non-Goals
This document does not:
- Establish accreditation bodies\
- Define governance enforcement mechanisms\
- Override normative TRQP language\
- Grant certification status
It provides an executable interpretation model for structured
conformance evaluation.
12. Evolution
Requirement identifiers SHALL remain stable across revisions to preserve
longitudinal compatibility.
Profiles MAY evolve as:
- The TRQP specification evolves\
- Operational deployment experience matures\
- Ecosystem assurance expectations increase
Backward compatibility considerations SHOULD be documented when
requirements change.
Closing Statement
Conformance is not mere protocol responsiveness.
Conformance SHALL be understood as reproducible, deterministic,
evidence-backed behavior under declared conditions.