Hello,
I’m reaching out with a brief architectural observation that may be useful for projects dealing with public-facing APIs, identity, or service-to-service trust. Across large-scale platforms, a recurring failure mode isn’t a vulnerability in isolation, but structural trust drift: public-facing APIs slowly expand in scope, and downstream services begin implicitly trusting that expansion. A containment-oriented framing we’ve been using (internally called Logically Constructed Areas) focuses on a few simple principles: Every API belongs to exactly one logical area with a hard boundary Trust must be reconstructed at each boundary — never inherited transitively Temporary or compatibility access should decay structurally, not procedurally Observability should be local-first, aggregated only explicitly APIs should function as “doors,” not hallways This isn’t a replacement for existing security models — it’s a way to clarify where systems end, reduce blast radius, and make permission drift visible before it becomes systemic. I’m sharing this in case it aligns with current or future design discussions in your project. Please feel free to ignore or reuse anything that’s helpful. Best regards, Martin Eduard Depta I’m particularly interested in whether this framing aligns with protocol-level thinking around explicit trust boundaries and non-transitive authorization. If useful, it may help surface boundary assumptions early in spec design rather than at deployment time. If helpful, this framing could be applied incrementally at implementation level to limit blast radius and make permission drift visible during normal operation, without changing existing APIs or tooling. Have fun 🙂✌️ Sent from my iPhone
