[dispatch] Re: Request for DISPATCH consideration: draft-sogomonian-aiip-aiid-00`

[Jim Fenton <[e-mail]>]

Comments inline.

On 20 Sep 2026, at 14:56, Aram Sogomonian wrote:

> Dear DISPATCH participants,
>
> I am requesting DISPATCH consideration for a new individual Experimental
> Internet-Draft:
>
>   draft-sogomonian-aiip-aiid-00
>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sogomonian-aiip-aiid/
>
> Title: AIIP/AIID: No-Surprise Autonomous Action, Identity, Access Plane,
> Receipt, and Revocation
>
> Summary: durable principal identity (AIID) co-deployed with an agents-only
> access plane (AIIP). The primary rule is no surprise: autonomous systems
> MUST NOT act outside their authorized task and grant. Consequential action
> uses Resolve, Invoke, and a signed Receipt on AIIP. Controls include
> Monitor set-only freeze (safe_mode), HQ-only set-active / revoke, and
> network-wide freeze. HTTPS remains the human control plane; agents MUST NOT
> use HTTP/HTTPS as their consequential action path (underlay TLS/QUIC for
> AIIP messages is out of scope of that ban).

I didn’t understand much of that summary, which could be because I’m not up on AI technology but also perhaps not. The statement that agents MUST NOT use HTTP/HTTPS jumps out at me; what is the reason they can’t share the same mechanisms as humans and how would this be enforced? Restricting agents to a specific subset of protocols doesn’t seem like a very effective way of constraining their behavior, if that is the intent.

> This is an individual submission prepared under AIIF (Artificial Intelligence
> Internet Foundation). It does not claim Working Group adoption or RFC status.

As we have asked in the past, are there others outside AIIF that are interested in developing and implementing this architecture and protocol? If you have not engaged with some, it is probably too early to dispatch.

> Companion individual drafts already on the Datatracker include:
>   - draft-sogomonian-aiid-namespace
>   - draft-sogomonian-aiip-architecture
>   - draft-sogomonian-aiip-core
>   - draft-sogomonian-aiip-native-access-architecture
>   - draft-morrow-sogomonian-exec-outcome-attest (co-authored)

I read quickly through this draft and -aiip-core, which I think is intended to be the protocol document. The core document didn’t seem to be nearly specific enough to be a protocol specification. To pick a random example, in Section 9 (Grants), “Full grant object = signed fields + signature (Base64).” doesn’t say anything about how this is encapsulated. Are there delimeters, or is this a JWS [RFC7515] or something?

Have you or anyone done a prototype implementation of this?

> Questions for DISPATCH:
>
> 1) Is there an existing WG whose charter covers agent principal identity
>    plus access-plane controls (freeze / receipt / grant), or would DISPATCH
>    recommend AD-sponsored individual progression, a BoF, a dedicated list,
>    or deferral?
>
> 2) Preference on packaging: keep AIID and AIIP as companions with this wrap
>    as the architectural umbrella, or a different split?

There are more fundamental questions that need to be resolved before considering the packaging.

> 3) Is a DISPATCH meeting slot appropriate after list discussion, or is list
>    feedback enough for now?

List discussion alone is likely to be insufficient.

-Jim (as participant)