Software & DevOpsSystem Design Standard

Standard Software Architecture RFC & Decision Record (ADR) Template

Structured markdown for system design proposals, non-goals, trade-off matrix, database migrations, and security audits.

modern-software-architecture-rfc.md•60 lines•372 words
# RFC-042: Migration to Client-Side WASM Document Processing Engine

**Author(s):** Alex Mercer (Staff Architect)  
**Status:** In Review (Draft / In Review / Approved / Rejected)  
**Target Review Date:** November 14, 2026  
**Target Delivery Sprint:** Q1 2027 Sprint 4  

---

### 1. CONTEXT & PROBLEM STATEMENT
Our current server-side PDF manipulation architecture incurs heavy cloud compute expenses ($4,200/month) and introduces GDPR liability by handling sensitive user documents on backend worker nodes. Furthermore, during traffic spikes, server upload queues cause request latency to exceed 8 seconds.

---

### 2. PROPOSED SOLUTION & ARCHITECTURE
We propose migrating 100% of PDF compression, format conversions, and metadata stripping to execute **client-side inside the user's web browser** using WebAssembly (WASM) compiled from Rust and HTML5 Canvas API.

#### Architectural Diagram:
```
[User Browser]
   ├── UI Layer (Next.js React Server & Client Components)
   ├── Web Worker Thread (Offloads heavy CPU processing)
   │     └── Rust WASM Module (pdf-engine.wasm)
   └── Volatile ArrayBuffer Memory (0 Server Uploads)
```

---

### 3. GOALS & NON-GOALS

#### Explicit Goals:
- Reduce cloud server PDF processing costs to **$0.00**.
- Guarantee zero-knowledge document privacy (no file payloads ever hit our APIs).
- Maintain sub-second processing latency for documents under 25MB.

#### Non-Goals:
- Supporting legacy browsers lacking WebAssembly support (e.g. Internet Explorer 11).
- Cloud archival storage of processed user documents.

---

### 4. TRADE-OFFS & CONSIDERATIONS

| Alternative Considered | Pros | Cons / Why Rejected |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Status Quo (AWS Lambda + S3)** | Known tech stack | $4,200/mo ongoing cost; privacy liability |
| **Serverless Go Microservice** | Fast cold starts | Still stores user files temporarily on disk |
| **Client-Side Rust WASM (Chosen)** | $0 compute; 100% private | Initial 1.2MB WASM bundle download |

---

### 5. SECURITY & DATA PRIVACY IMPACT
- **Zero Server Egress:** No document data packets leave the client device.
- **Content Security Policy (CSP):** The WASM module is sandboxed and granted zero network socket permissions.

---

### 6. MIGRATION & ROLLBACK PLAN
- **Phase 1:** Roll out WASM engine behind a 10% feature flag for beta users.
- **Phase 2:** Monitor browser crash telemetry via Sentry. If crash rate exceeds 0.2%, instant feature-flag rollback to previous engine.
💡 Ready to customize? Copy and paste directly into your preferred text editor or IDE.Open in DocSwift Tool

How to Use & Customize This Template

1

Distribute for Team Review

Create a pull request or Notion page with this RFC and request feedback from tech leads and security teams.

2

Define Explicit Non-Goals

Section 3 protects project scope by explicitly documenting what the proposal will NOT solve.

3

Establish Concrete Rollback Triggers

Define exact numeric thresholds (e.g. >0.2% crash rate) that trigger an automated deployment rollback.

Pro Formatting & Best Practice Tips

  • The "Non-Goals" section is the most valuable part of any RFC to keep engineering discussions focused.
  • Always compare at least two alternatives alongside the proposed solution in the trade-off matrix.
  • Include memory allocation estimates for mobile browser execution constraints.

Recommended DocSwift Tools for This Workflow

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between an RFC and an ADR?

An RFC (Request for Comments) is a collaborative proposal shared during the design phase to gather feedback. An ADR (Architecture Decision Record) is the permanent historical record capturing the final decision and reasoning.