[Agentproto] Re: Discussion topics

[Bradley B <[e-mail]>]

Leslie, Orie,

On the second question:

 Can we identify the minimum context-propagation/session-management
 primitives genuinely missing from existing IETF and other
 AI agent work

One candidate, stated as narrowly as I can.

A refused action is unrepresentable by correlation metadata.
Correlation attaches to a pair. A refusal has no second half. Nothing
subsequent happened, and that is the point of the record. An HTTP
status does not close the gap either: it is hop-scoped, so it does not
survive the hop to the party who needs it, and at that layer silence
and denial are the same shape.

Use case: a task crosses a domain boundary, the receiving domain
declines, and the party who later needs that fact was never on the
connection.

The primitive: entering a state a relying party may need to reason
about produces an artifact rather than silence. Not session states,
not transitions.

Prototype: we emit signed allow and deny records. In the current
interop event a third party compared ours against a frozen build and a
shared evidence record. That establishes the records are portable and
checkable by someone who is not us. It establishes nothing beyond
that.

IPR disclosure covering the material behind this:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/7500


Bradley B
11 AI Blockchain Developments LLC


On Sat, Aug 22, 2026 at 1:26 PM Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)
<ldaigle=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> At the IETF 126 meeting of AGENTPROTO (see [0]), we had considerable momentum on some aspects of the proposed charter for a WG (with some noted concerns about other areas). We’d like to continue with the momentum here, to work the charter into good shape for an IETF WG.
>
> At IETF 126, the room seemed reasonably aligned around a concrete interoperability/context-propagation problem (more than around building an overarching framework). We haven’t quite gotten crisp with the terminology or specific need here.
>
> With that, can we focus on:
>
> what are the concrete interoperability problems created by dynamic, multi-party, cross-domain and multimodal agent interactions;
> can we identify the minimum context-propagation/session-management primitives that are genuinely missing from existing IETF and other AI agent work and develop those primitives through concrete use cases and prototypes.
>
> We’ll focus on those higher level questions for now, and return to the charter text [1] discussion after we have a clearer signal from the mailing list on these issues.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chairs — Leslie & Orie.
>
> [0] Meeting materials, including minutes: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/126/session/agentproto
>
> [1] Current charter draft https://github.com/ietf-artarea/charters/blob/main/agentproto/charter.md
>
> --
>
> ________________________________
>
> Leslie Daigle
> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
> [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Agentproto mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]



-- 

Bradley B Founder and Architect

11/11 AI | 11 AI & Blockchain Development LLC
[e-mail] UEI GHEZH441JN51 | CAGE 1A1G9 | DUNS
144921555 Public proof: https://control.11aiblockchain.com/proof

📧 [e-mail]
🌐 https://11aiblockchain.com