[Agentproto] Proposed work sequence and call for Internet-Draft contributions

[Orie <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

We would like to organize a series of focused mailing list exchanges to
advance the work described in the agentproto charter
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/agentproto/about/>.

We propose starting with existing practice, use cases, and deployment
models, then building toward shared terminology, protocol requirements and
design, and transport bindings.
We are publishing the sequence up front so participants can identify
relevant Internet-Drafts and prepare contributions.

**How this will work**

- **One topic at a time.** The chairs will open a clearly tagged thread
identifying the current topic, specific questions, expected output, and a
contribution period. Please hold contributions on later topics until their
threads open.
- **Start with specific Internet-Drafts.** For each topic, please point to
relevant drafts and sections, explain how they address the questions
raised, and identify any gaps. Authors are encouraged to propose concrete
text or revisions.
- **Ground feedback in the contributions.** Reviews should identify the
draft, section, or proposal being addressed and explain the reasoning
behind suggested changes. Deployment examples and implementation experience
are particularly useful.
- **Keep contributions traceable.** Please reply in the designated thread.
If a focused issue needs a separate thread, retain the topic tag and link
to the original discussion.
- **Capture outcomes and next steps.** The chairs will summarize the
contributions, apparent agreement, open questions, and proposed document
work before moving to the next topic. Any consensus or adoption calls will
be explicit.

An Internet-Draft is not a prerequisite for participation.
Where existing drafts do not cover a need, please identify the gap and,
where possible, suggest text or an example that could support a
contribution.

We will maintain an index of threads, drafts, summaries, and follow-up
actions, mapping the results to the charter deliverables.
Documents can develop in parallel while the list focuses on one topic at a
time.

**Proposed topic sequence**

**1. Existing practice, use cases, and deployment models**

Please identify Internet-Drafts describing existing systems, protocols, use
cases, or deployment models relevant to agentproto.
Point to the sections that explain how users, agents, and tools interact,
what works today, and where interoperability gaps arise. Implementation and
deployment experience will help us assess these contributions.

The expected output is a set of candidate use cases, deployment models, and
supporting references for **Use Cases and Requirements**, together with
deployment assumptions for the **Reference Architecture**.

**2. Terminology and architectural concepts**

Please identify definitions and architectural descriptions in relevant
Internet-Drafts, grounded in the examples from the first topic.
Highlight where terminology aligns, where it conflicts, and where
definitions need refinement—including dialog, dialog context, participants,
and intermediaries.

The expected output is candidate terminology and architectural text for the
**Reference Architecture**, also supporting the **Agentic Dialog Management
Protocol**.

**3. Protocol constraints, requirements, and design**

Please identify Internet-Drafts and specific proposals addressing the
requirements established by the use cases.
Relevant contributions may cover correlation, context propagation,
lifecycle management, continuity, failure recovery, and application
integration, with security, privacy, and operational constraints considered
throughout.

Please explain which requirements each proposal addresses, its assumptions,
and any remaining gaps.

The expected output is refined text for **Use Cases and Requirements** and
candidate mechanisms and specification text for the **Agentic Dialog
Management Protocol**, with corresponding architecture updates.

**4. Transports and bindings**

Please identify Internet-Drafts relevant to carrying dialog context over
existing IETF protocols. Contributions should connect proposed bindings to
the requirements and describe their tradeoffs and dependencies.

We will establish evaluation criteria before drawing conclusions about
particular bindings, then work through candidate specifications and
coordination needs.

The expected output is documented selection criteria and candidate
transport-binding text for the **Agentic Dialog Management Protocol**.

For now, please limit replies to feedback on this sequence and process.
Once we have considered that feedback, the chairs will open the first topic
thread with a call for specific Internet-Draft contributions.

Thanks,
Orie and Leslie
agentproto co-chairs