[Agentproto] Re: Sussing out points of disagreement on the charter

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

> On Aug 12, 2026, at 10:05 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Suresh, hi Rob, hi all,
> 
> I think all the points discussed below are needed in some way, but the real questions is: what needs to be standardized?
> 
> I think the correlation bit if the most important piece here that we identified as needed for inter domain workflows (without providing a clear definition of “workflow” at this point). Yes, proof of binding is needed as well but maybe we can separate this out and rely on existing (or new) work of other working groups?
> 
> On the session lifecycle question: Initially I thought this is the main piece but the more we talk about it, the less I’m actually sure what we mean. Do people have concrete examples what is needed, and again more importantly, what needs to be standardized here to survive cross-domain rather than just being an implementation choice?

I think this is where I see some divergence between what Jonathan and Brian proposed. If you think the failure+migration use case is in scope, there is a need for this to be agreed across domains (and not simply an implementation choice) since the other party also needs to agree with how it is done. If your point is that there might already be mechanisms that can be used that is something we can discuss.

Thanks
Suresh