[Agentproto] Re: DRAFT minutes from the AGENTPROTO BoF

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 29/07/2026 23:59, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) wrote:
> Please be sure to review and provide your comments on the Issues
> (https://github.com/ietf-artarea/charters/issues) that have been
> opened, the Pull Requests (https://github.com/ietf-artarea/charters/
> pulls) that have been submitted, and the reviews and comments that
> have been provided.
> 
> This input will be used to update the draft charter. In the interest
> of maintaining momentum, my goal is for this update to be posted to
> the datatracker and to the list for additional review and discussion
> by early next week.

I won't have time to follow GH issues/PRs in the coming weeks.
(It is vacation time.)

My main charter comments though might be ones I can express now:

- I'm v. unclear that IETF work in this space would prosper due to
other efforts having far more adoption. I don't however object to
lots of other people wasting lots of time if that's the case, but
it'd seem sub-optimal.

- If agents can talk to one another in paths or trees, then before
chartering a WG I would suggest we need to have an answer for this
question: If (a,b,c) is a comms path between agents (perhaps within
a tree) and if 'c' is actually a newly created entity, but one that
needs access to a long-term secret credential accessible at 'a'
(e.g. pwd or SSH private key) and where that credential must not be
exposed to 'b' nor easily abused - then how's that going to work?
(And the more obvious general cases too of course:-) If there's no
good answer for that, then I'm sorta strongly against chartering a
WG as we'd be inevitably enabling pick-pocket agents. (And it'd
just be smelly;-)

I do not think OAuth or any other existing IETF technology by
itself provides an answer to the credential question above.

Thanks,
S.