



Internet Engineering Task Force                          J. van de Meent
Internet-Draft                                                  Humotica
Intended status: Informational                                9 May 2026
Expires: 10 November 2026


                    TIBET Semantic Surface Manifest
          draft-vandemeent-tibet-semantic-surface-manifest-00

Abstract

   This document defines the Semantic Surface Manifest, a human-readable
   and policy-matchable routing layer for identity-bound continuity
   containers and TBZ-based sealed bundles.

   The Semantic Surface Manifest exposes limited dispatch metadata such
   as time fragment, context, profile, and priority without exposing
   sealed content.  It is intended for use in systems where routing
   decisions may need to occur before deep inspection, while trust
   remains anchored in intrinsic bundle properties such as magic bytes,
   manifests, hashes, signatures, and causal references.

   In short: address visible, content sealed.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 10 November 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.






van de Meent            Expires 10 November 2026                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                     SSM                          May 2026


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Status of This Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Design Goals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Syntax  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Time Fragment Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  Vocabulary Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     7.1.  Profile Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.2.  Priority Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.3.  Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   8.  Processing Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     8.1.  Surface Parse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     8.2.  Type Sniff  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     8.3.  Deep Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     8.4.  Surface-to-Manifest Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   9.  Mirrored Manifest Fields  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   10. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   11. Mismatch Classes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     11.1.  Cosmetic Mismatch  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     11.2.  Routing-Risk Mismatch  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     11.3.  No Mirrored Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   13. Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   14. Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   15. Relationship to JIS, TIBET, TAT, and ICC  . . . . . . . . . .   7
   16. Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   17. Questions for Future Revisions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   18. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   19. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Status of This Memo

   This memo is an Internet-Draft working document derived from
   operational architecture notes and prototype work in the Humotica /
   TIBET / TAT / ICC stack during May 2026.



van de Meent            Expires 10 November 2026                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                     SSM                          May 2026


   The present -00 version captures the core routing model, visible
   syntax, mirrored-surface concept, and mismatch consequences needed
   for first public review.

2.  Problem Statement

   Sealed containers often provide strong integrity but weak dispatch
   semantics.

   Systems therefore face a recurring tradeoff: either encrypt and seal
   everything, delaying routing and policy choice until deep inspection,
   or expose too much metadata, weakening privacy and creating new
   security ambiguities.

   The Semantic Surface Manifest addresses this by providing a
   constrained, readable routing layer that supports dispatch without
   decrypting content, minimizes metadata exposure, does not replace
   cryptographic verification, and composes with existing sealed-
   container workflows.

3.  Terminology

   Identity-Bound Continuity Container:  A cryptographically sealed
      bundle that combines identity binding, continuity semantics, and
      containerized payload transfer.

   Semantic Surface Manifest:  A human-readable routing surface
      associated with a bundle, typically expressed through filename or
      object-name structure and optionally mirrored into sealed manifest
      fields.

   Intrinsic Truth:  Properties established by the sealed object itself,
      such as magic bytes, manifest, signatures, hashes, and chain
      anchors.

   Extrinsic Surface:  Properties expressed outside the sealed object
      for dispatch and routing, such as time fragment, context, profile,
      and priority.

   Surface-Integrity Event:  A meaningful mismatch or anomaly involving
      visible routing surface and mirrored sealed routing fields.

4.  Design Goals

   The Semantic Surface Manifest is intended to remain human-readable,
   machine-parseable, bounded in disclosure, and composable with
   existing ICC or TBZ verification workflows.




van de Meent            Expires 10 November 2026                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                     SSM                          May 2026


   It should support wildcard or policy matching, align with logs and
   audit ecosystems, and support mirrored sealed fields for consistency
   checks.  It must not be treated as proof of identity or content,
   override manifest truth, or carry rich payload details.

5.  Syntax

   The normative external form is:

   <time-fragment>.<context>.<profile>.<priority>[.<icc-ext>]

   The Semantic Surface Manifest is intentionally flat and dot-delimited
   in version 1.  The formal grammar uses ABNF as defined in [RFC5234].

   Each segment is restricted to lowercase letters, digits, and hyphens.
   Segments must not contain spaces, slashes, underscores, nested dots,
   or uppercase letters.

   surface-name    = time-fragment "." context "." profile "." priority
                     [ "." icc-ext ]

   time-fragment   = date-frag [ "t" time-frag "z" ]
   date-frag       = 4DIGIT "-" 2DIGIT "-" 2DIGIT
   time-frag       = 2DIGIT "-" 2DIGIT
   context         = 1*32(segment-char)
   profile         = 1*16(segment-char)
   priority        = 1*16(segment-char)
   icc-ext         = 1*16(segment-char)
   segment-char    = LCALPHA / DIGIT / "-"
   LCALPHA         = %x61-7A
   DIGIT           = %x30-39

6.  Time Fragment Format

   This document prefers an ISO8601-style fragment over compact local
   date forms because it is lexicographically sortable, readable across
   jurisdictions, aligned with logs, and supports both coarse and fine
   routing granularity.

   Two forms are recommended in version 1:

   2026-05-08
   2026-05-08t18-38z

7.  Vocabulary Registries






van de Meent            Expires 10 November 2026                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                     SSM                          May 2026


7.1.  Profile Registry

   Initial profile values include claude, gemini, gpt, kit, iddrop,
   parentattest, capsule, and tza.  These values describe semantic
   class, not vendor authenticity.

7.2.  Priority Registry

   Initial priority values include urgent, normal, background, and
   sealed.

7.3.  Context

   The context field remains open-text in version 1 but is expected to
   be short, low-leakage, and ABNF-conforming.

8.  Processing Model

8.1.  Surface Parse

   A compliant implementation may parse the semantic surface before
   opening the bundle in order to choose a queue, handler, retention
   policy, or operator lane.

8.2.  Type Sniff

   An implementation should verify container type using intrinsic
   signals such as TBZ magic bytes before deep handling.

8.3.  Deep Verification

   Before trust-sensitive operations, an implementation must verify the
   sealed container according to its intrinsic integrity rules.

8.4.  Surface-to-Manifest Consistency

   If the sealed manifest contains mirrored surface fields, the
   implementation should compare them against the external semantic
   surface.  Meaningful mismatch should be treated as a surface-
   integrity event leading to triage, quarantine, or policy review
   rather than silent acceptance.

9.  Mirrored Manifest Fields

   This document defines optional mirrored manifest fields such as
   surface_time_fragment, surface_context, surface_profile, and
   surface_priority.




van de Meent            Expires 10 November 2026                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                     SSM                          May 2026


   If both an external semantic surface and internal mirrored fields are
   present, the mirrored fields are authoritative for triage
   classification and deep semantic handling.

10.  Example

   Example external surface:

   2026-05-08.redspecter-review.claude.urgent

   Processing may route to an urgent queue, classify as a candidate
   profile, verify TBZ magic bytes, inspect the manifest, verify
   signatures and hashes, compare visible and sealed surface, and only
   then hand to a profile-aware handler if consistent or policy-
   approved.

11.  Mismatch Classes

11.1.  Cosmetic Mismatch

   A visible label changes while sealed truth remains intact.
   Recommended disposition is triage with manifest semantics prevailing.

11.2.  Routing-Risk Mismatch

   A visible profile and a sealed profile differ in a way that creates
   significant misrouting risk.  Recommended disposition is triage or
   quarantine, not auto-materialization.

11.3.  No Mirrored Fields

   Legacy bundles may provide visible routing only, yielding a reduced-
   assurance mode because no sealed-surface comparison is possible.

12.  Security Considerations

   The Semantic Surface Manifest is not a source of trust.
   Implementations must assume that external names can be changed and
   visible routing labels can be misleading.  The sealed container
   remains the only strong source of truth.

   Routing may depend on SSM, but trust must not depend on SSM alone.









van de Meent            Expires 10 November 2026                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                     SSM                          May 2026


13.  Privacy Considerations

   The Semantic Surface Manifest intentionally exposes limited metadata.
   Implementers should keep context low-sensitivity, avoid direct
   secrets or detailed personal data, and prefer naming for dispatch
   rather than disclosure.

14.  Interoperability Considerations

   The SSM is designed to compose with TBZ, ICC-based continuity
   containers, TIBET Drop or TAT flows, session-state bundles,
   attestation bundles, sealed capsules, local storage, transport
   objects, attachments, queues, and router decisions.

15.  Relationship to JIS, TIBET, TAT, and ICC

   This document does not replace JIS identity semantics, TIBET causal
   ordering, TAT transfer flow, or ICC sealed object semantics.  It adds
   a visible routing surface above them.

   A clean split is that JIS decides who is acting, TIBET decides causal
   truth, TAT decides transfer flow, ICC decides sealed object class,
   and SSM decides visible dispatch semantics.

16.  Future Work

   *  richer but still bounded registries for profile

   *  explicit mirrored-surface validation modes

   *  MUX or SNAFT routing integration

   *  UI conventions for displaying safe routing metadata

   *  signed or policy-bound surface-to-manifest binding hints

17.  Questions for Future Revisions

   The following topics are non-blocking for the present -00 version and
   are recorded here to guide later discussion and interoperability
   work.

   *  whether profile should remain open-text or move to a tighter
      registry

   *  whether the optional suffix should be preserved, normalized, or
      ignored by parsers




van de Meent            Expires 10 November 2026                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                     SSM                          May 2026


   *  whether seconds-level time fragments should be allowed in version
      1

   *  whether some domains should escalate all mismatch to quarantine
      while others allow low-risk auto-continue

18.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests two registries: a Surface Profile Registry and
   a Surface Priority Registry.

   Registration policy for both is Expert Review as described in
   [RFC8126].  Initial profile values are claude, gemini, gpt, kit,
   iddrop, parentattest, capsule, and tza.  Initial priority values are
   urgent, normal, background, and sealed.

   No registries are requested for time-fragment, context, or icc-ext in
   version 1.

19.  References

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   The author thanks the Humotica team for editorial assistance, RFC
   outline preparation, mismatch class formalization, and the
   operational tooling that made the surface consistency model concrete.

   The author also thanks Richard Barron of Red Specter Security
   Research for adversarial framing that helped sharpen the address
   visible, content sealed principle and the rename-attack perspective.

Author's Address

   Jasper van de Meent
   Humotica
   Netherlands
   Email: info@humotica.com
   URI:   https://humotica.com/




van de Meent            Expires 10 November 2026                [Page 8]
