docs(rfc): RFC 0005 - Sandbox Egress Middleware (draft)#1738
Draft
pimlock wants to merge 2 commits into
Draft
Conversation
|
Auto-sync is disabled for draft pull requests in this repository. Workflows must be run manually. Contributors can view more details about this message here. |
elezar
reviewed
Jun 4, 2026
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like the split here, otherwise the README gets quite long and the intent gets lost in the details. Is this part of the RFC skill now?
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Draft of RFC 0005 - Sandbox Egress Middleware. Proposes hooks in the supervisor proxy that can inspect, transform, allow/deny, and annotate outbound sandbox requests based on their content, via an operator-registered external middleware service. Privacy Guard is the motivating use case.
This is an early draft for feedback. The main
README.mdholds the high-level proposal; detailed alternatives and schemas move to appendices over time.TRACKER.mdis the working/drafting document.Related Issue
Changes
rfc/0005-sandbox-egress-middleware/README.md- Summary, Motivation, Privacy Guard use case, Non-goals, and the Proposal (architecture, hook placement, contract, registration/delivery, policy integration, ordering, metadata, OCSF audit/logging).rfc/0005-sandbox-egress-middleware/TRACKER.md- drafting tracker.rfc/0005-sandbox-egress-middleware/appendices/deployment-options.md- deployment-mode decision and future options.Note: RFC numbering conflict
This RFC uses number
0005, which already collides with other RFCs that are in-progress.Potential solution: reserve RFC numbers and explicitly allow non-continuous numbering. Gaps in the sequence are fine; what matters is that a number is uniquely claimed once an RFC is in progress. Reserving numbers makes it easier to talk about in-flight RFCs - e.g. "someone proposed X in RFC 4", or "RFC 4 and RFC 6 are both in progress and overlap on X" - without two documents fighting over the same identifier.
Happy to renumber this RFC to whatever the next reserved value should be.
Testing
N/A - documentation only.
Checklist