[Agentproto] Re: Delegation and evidence: a concrete candidate for the charter discussion

[Mikhail Sergeev <[e-mail]>]

Bradley, Iman,

That split holds in general, not only for single use. I posted a draft
yesterday that draws the same seam, and it reached it from the other
direction, so the agreement is worth something.

Section 8 makes detection coverage require two things rather than one.
Evidence adequate to distinguish the misbehavior, and delivery or
omission controls that prevent B from hiding it without an observable
indication. Your detector satisfies the first and fails the second.

Section 11 carries Iman's case to the reporting layer. Every record in
an evaluated set can verify while records that would have changed the
outcome were never delivered. A verdict over a named evidence basis is
a verdict over that basis, not over all evidence that exists.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sergeev-claim-boundaries/

One note on your proposed text. It says the evaluator MUST NOT report
single use as established, which is right. Section 11 asks for the
neighbouring distinction as well: not established and unsupported are
different findings, and collapsing them costs a relying party the
difference between "we checked and it failed" and "we could not check".


Mikhail

On Thu, Sep 17, 2026 01:32 AM, Bradley B <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Iman,
>
> Agreed, and the point is separable from the one I wrote.
>
> Independence constrains who attests. Completeness constrains what they
> see. A detector that is independent of the effecting party, and is fed
> only what that party discloses, satisfies the first and fails the
> second. My paragraph named the detector and said nothing about its
> field of view.
>
> Your test is the right one because of what it leaves intact. Every
> disclosed signature and inclusion proof still verifies. Validity of the
> disclosed set does not bear on whether the set is complete, and an
> omission produces no invalid artifact to find.
>
> Proposed, alongside the existing single-use text:
>
> A profile asserting single use MUST state the basis on which the
> detecting party or service observes the whole consumption domain.
> Where coverage rests on disclosure by a party whose conduct or
> assertion is material to the claim, the evaluator MUST NOT report
> single use as established.
>
> Doug, that is a third insertion for the same seam.
>
> IPR disclosure covering the material behind this:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/7500
>
> Bradley B
> 11 AI Blockchain Development LLC
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
> Agentproto mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>