Internet-Draft Scientific Admissibility Evidence Record October 2026
Watts Expires 3 May 2027 [Page]
Workgroup:
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-watts-scientific-admissibility-01
Published:
Intended Status:
Informational
Expires:
Author:
D. O. Watts
GoodShyt Group Inc.

Scientific Admissibility Evidence Records: A Research Data Exchange Proposal

Abstract

This document proposes interoperable evidence record fields for reproducible research workflows. It is an independent working draft and is not an IETF publication or standard.

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 3 May 2027.

▲

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Research archives need immutable source identifiers and typed evidence claims. This proposal is informational.

2. Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

3. Record Fields

Each record carries source_id, locator, digest, claim_id, evidence_tier, falsifier, validation_status, and release_status. Missing fields are represented explicitly as unknown.

4. Processing

Implementations MUST NOT convert an unknown result to a false result or a passing integrity check into an empirical validity claim. A revision MUST preserve the prior record and link to it.

5. Security and Privacy Considerations

Implementations SHOULD minimize personal data and MUST NOT publish credentials. Digests are integrity checks, not proof of truth or ownership.

6. IANA Considerations

This document requests no IANA actions.

7. References

[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

Appendix A. Changes since -00

This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

Editorial and tooling-conformance changes only; no technical content was changed.

Author's Address

Deonté O'dell Watts
GoodShyt Group Inc.
San Francisco, CA
United States of America