[Agentproto] Re: Delegation and evidence: a concrete candidate for the charter discussion
Blake Morrison <blake@truealter.com> Fri, 02 October 2026 09:26 UTC
Received: from mail-10625.protonmail.ch (mail-10625.protonmail.ch [79.135.106.25]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD5624B for <agentproto@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Oct 2026 09:26:17 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: mx.ietf.org; dkim=pass header.d=truealter.com header.s=protonmail2 header.b=Kc5bDPVy; spf=pass (mx.ietf.org: domain of blake@truealter.com designates 79.135.106.25 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=blake@truealter.com; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=truealter.com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=truealter.com; s=protonmail2; t=1790933170; x=1791192370; bh=fPnvQohtInqP27s7Ep0rMcJ2oOOPbgeK8RNsQyLCauY=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=Kc5bDPVyUAXX5M3V1oyowcaZWQCRpcrTfvZBG2WmGBmai/d3NlpTIrePvq0JswP7E k+1+R9p+SmvGyY9/5bJibAY85lRQLKVlWVTM/GgAB0RpQfoRMfhaGtdehg6NkIrsML Pk8CA1biKx7A+AZ+dna+MlgksYEY0ibMZBx3PsXwtPMOuwi9HRBOqvZu46yMAYx8wA C4m2q0THwXItosMhMZbC4Cwyu3WZU3b77MA2pUzLh/hK8CsIcCLK8p9vVqc9j1VFNM MhksX5fvxMeNrVoz9rVZLBbZAWXBxw8hZq2BGJp7CZu67CvitRfRjW/CGC3FFGFTaC Hw9/vvuNwkyVQ==
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2026 09:26:05 +0000
To: Mikhail Sergeev <mikhailsergeev369@gmail.com>
From: Blake Morrison <blake@truealter.com>
Message-ID: <kAyCqqZHFQCThzLvuf5kvgnowLeZluoMAcgjTYXuQ7gJ5oOTk-F0PED5I9qWFvWlD8sr4xItyEdTXUBoRuJWV7guAOizfYdy3TkKDqnlg1A=@truealter.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC-beJ7KZ0O3Jmvp-s=aj4mH+JVVgTPU_n1FkxeJcN2GA3Lz-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <60A58D4F-8EEC-4B20-B896-6C14E4C80D72@mainlabs.ai> <CAC8Ya3gcJdnwg3UKdP5K6FM2R3v3EhDvGCLWrBBWR76Y1s6mMw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOfgHgroB4OA_0w5QvViQNZx0NQ4JUmfDLRd-pdu9ZAeMpBr6A@mail.gmail.com> <CAC8Ya3ir3zD9vcmZWm=Aa-5j7+LUf_6RskDHDSmDODqaeuSckg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOfgHgq5kXU-d0FkY543+3PQm3vLz9dbcCisWQnGXMFT=m0gWg@mail.gmail.com> <CAC8Ya3jyp8OMMBH9jACkFCSuUB4Nu6eEeDCpsq5sw8kvKAxOxw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC-beJ7KZ0O3Jmvp-s=aj4mH+JVVgTPU_n1FkxeJcN2GA3Lz-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Feedback-ID: 187617253:user:proton
X-Pm-Message-ID: cd174c5d1415a60df533b1a0581f57f9efbdfe8a
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spamd-Bar: -
Message-ID-Hash: HR7AY5MEAFF7EVS7TVCOD45XTYQCKHM3
X-Message-ID-Hash: HR7AY5MEAFF7EVS7TVCOD45XTYQCKHM3
X-MailFrom: blake@truealter.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: agentproto@ietf.org, quantum@11aiblockchain.com, team@emiliaprotocol.ai, Douglas.Wadkins@strakewright.ai, sumit@mainlabs.ai, enrique@somoza.co, nicholas@csoai.org, "chris@truealter.com" <chris@truealter.com>, "ekr@rtfm.com" <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10
Precedence: list
Subject: [Agentproto] Re: Delegation and evidence: a concrete candidate for the charter discussion
List-Id: Agent Communication Protocols <agentproto.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/agentproto/vkzgQF_T0GL1dxd4OuHQeUwP_XA>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/agentproto>
List-Help: <mailto:agentproto-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:agentproto-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:agentproto@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:agentproto-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:agentproto-leave@ietf.org>
Hi Doug, Bradley, Eric, Eric, sincere apologies for the prolonged wait. The problem statement for the delegation row is below. The grant gets made once with the person there. The agent acts on it later and unattended, at an endpoint in another organisation that never saw the grant. OAuth and WIMSE can show the authority exists and who it was issued to but not that this particular action falls inside it because the grant was fixed before the request existed. Doug has the ordering "independently verifiable later, rather than merely asserted by the party being evaluated" and Bradley asks whether it "could have been stated otherwise" by a party whose conduct or assertion is material. In delegation the person who made the grant is one of those parties. If the protocol carries nothing about them neither test has anyone to name. Blake
- [Agentproto] Delegation and evidence: a concrete … Enrique Somoza
- [Agentproto] Re: Delegation and evidence: a concr… Sumit Ahuja
- [Agentproto] Re: Delegation and evidence: a concr… Sumit Ahuja
- [Agentproto] Re: Delegation and evidence: a concr… Douglas Wadkins
- [Agentproto] Re: Delegation and evidence: a concr… Sumit Ahuja
- [Agentproto] Re: Delegation and evidence: a concr… Bradley B
- [Agentproto] Re: Delegation and evidence: a concr… Douglas Wadkins
- [Agentproto] Re: Delegation and evidence: a concr… Bradley B
- [Agentproto] Re: Delegation and evidence: a concr… Douglas Wadkins
- [Agentproto] Re: Delegation and evidence: a concr… Bradley B
- [Agentproto] Re: Delegation and evidence: a concr… Iman Schrock
- [Agentproto] Re: Delegation and evidence: a concr… Bradley B
- [Agentproto] Re: Delegation and evidence: a concr… Iman Schrock
- [Agentproto] Re: Delegation and evidence: a concr… Bradley B
- [Agentproto] Re: Delegation and evidence: a concr… Mikhail Sergeev
- [Agentproto] Re: Delegation and evidence: a concr… Blake Morrison
- [Agentproto] Re: Delegation and evidence: a concr… Sumit Ahuja
- [Agentproto] Re: Delegation and evidence: a concr… nicholas
- [Agentproto] Re: Delegation and evidence: a concr… Lars Kersten Kroehl