Re: [Uri-review] Request for Review and Registration of New URI Scheme "ai"

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Hi Collin,

Below you say " - As earlier mentioned in response to Ted's feedback, I
will work on providing ABNF definitions for the various components of the
URI scheme, and outline the security considerations as required by RFC
7595."

I did not receive a response other than this one, so you may indeed have an
error in my email address.  More importantly, replies really should go to
the list.

regards,

Ted Hardie

On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 3:06 AM Collin Paran <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ted and Martin,
>
> I sincerely appreciate the detailed feedback from both of you! Your
> insights are invaluable in refining the "ai" URI scheme proposal to ensure
> it aligns with established guidelines and serves its intended purpose
> effectively. I have taken the time to review a few of the concerns raised
> and provided responses below:
>
> 1. General Data vs. AI Data:
>     - I understand the point Martin has raised regarding the universality
> of protocols like HTTP and WS, which are agnostic to the type of data they
> carry. The primary motivation behind proposing a specific URI scheme for AI
> data is to facilitate specialized communication needs of generative AI
> applications, especially with the advent of AI photonic compute and
> laser-based communications which could offer novel communication paradigms.
>
> 2. Applicability Beyond AI:
>     - I agree with the suggestion that if a new protocol surfaces from the
> AI communication needs, it should not be limited to AI but should be useful
> for other applications as well. I will reconsider the naming of the URI
> scheme to reflect a broader scope.
>
> 3. Authority Information:
>     - The initial proposal lacked authority information, which is crucial
> for identifying the party making the data available and ensuring data from
> multiple parties can be accommodated. I will work on including authority
> information in the URI scheme to address this concern.
>
> 4. Scheme Name:
>     - The suggestion to consider a more descriptive or unique scheme name
> like "wsai:" or "aiws:" is well taken. I will explore alternative naming
> options that encapsulate the essence of the protocol while not being overly
> restrictive to AI.
>
> 5. Grammar and Security Considerations:
>     - As earlier mentioned in response to Ted's feedback, I will work on
> providing ABNF definitions for the various components of the URI scheme,
> and outline the security considerations as required by RFC 7595.
>
> 6. Engagement with the Community:
>     - I am open to further discussions and feedback from the community to
> ensure the proposal meets the necessary standards and caters to the
> intended use cases effectively. I'm committed to making any necessary
> revisions based on the community's feedback.
>
> 7. Registry and Token Standardization:
>     - In line with Ted's feedback, I'm considering the establishment or
> adoption of registries for common models, actions, and AI types to foster
> common understanding and ensure the URI scheme serves its purpose
> effectively.
>
> I am looking forward to further discussions on the mailing list and
> appreciate the time and effort you both have put into reviewing the
> proposal and providing insightful feedback.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Collin
> [e-mail]
>
> > On 10/09/2023 5:28 PM MDT Martin J. Dürst <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello Collin, others,
> >
> > A few more comments on top of Ted's, written in a somewhat more direct
> > style.
> >
> > It's unclear to me why AI data is in any way special. Protocols such as
> > HTTP or WS don't care what data they carry, and data shouldn't care what
> > protocols it's been carried by. As an example, Web Sockets is used (I
> > guess) for search results, for stock price data, for gaming data, and so
> > on, but there's no need for anything other than a ws: scheme. Same for
> http.
> >
> > On the other hand, if AI would surface the need for a new protocol,
> > there's no need to limit this to AI; there's a high chance that such a
> > protocol may be useful for other applications, too. In that case, the
> > scheme name "ai" would be inappropriate.
> >
> > Your scheme proposal doesn't contain any kind of authority information
> > (that would usually be some domain name). So it's unclear how data could
> > be made available by multiple parties, or how the party making the data
> > available could be identified. This is different both from
> > "type-of-generative-ai" and from "specific-model".
> >
> > [Of course, it might be the case that this is only intended for the use
> > by a single party providing data, but that's not what URI schemes are
> for.]
> >
> > If indeed there is a need for an application-specific URI scheme for AI,
> > that may not be limited to your proposal. It would therefore be
> > premature to use such a short scheme name for this specific proposal;
> > maybe "wsai:" or "aiws:" or something along these lines would be more
> > appropriate (assuming that there's a need for an application-specific
> > URI scheme at all, which I strongly doubt (see my first point)).
> >
> > Regards,   Martin.
> >
> > On 2023-10-07 14:34, Collin Paran wrote:
> > > Dear IANA and URI Review Mailing List Members,
> > >
> > > I am writing to request a review and registration of a new URI Scheme,
> "ai", designed for facilitating communication in generative A.I.
> applications. The scheme is inspired by WebSockets and allows the passing
> of JSON data for streaming words, video data, or images between generative
> A.I. entities.
> > >
> > > Please find below the URI Scheme Registration Template as per the
> guidelines provided in RFC 4395.
> > >
> > > URI Scheme Name: ai
> > >
> > > Status: Provisional
> > >
> > > URI Scheme Syntax:
> > >      *
> `ai://<type-of-generative-ai>/<specific-model>/<action>?<parameters>`
> > > URI Scheme Semantics:
> > >      * The `ai` scheme is aimed at enabling real-time or
> near-real-time communication for streaming data among generative Artificial
> Intelligence (A.I.) applications and protocols.
> > > Encoding Considerations:
> > >      * UTF-8 encoding for multilingual support and binary format for
> multimedia data encapsulated in JSON objects.
> > > Applications/Protocols that use this URI scheme name:
> > >      * Generative A.I. applications and protocols requiring real-time
> or near-real-time communication for streaming data.
> > > Interoperability Considerations:
> > >      * Compatibility with existing WebSocket implementations and a
> standard JSON format for data communication.
> > > Security Considerations:
> > >      * Usage of Artificial Intelligence Secure (AIS) which is also
> interoperable with wss (WebSocket Secure) for encrypted communication and
> authentication mechanisms for authorized access.
> > > Contact:
> > >      * Collin Paran, [e-mail] mailto:[e-mail]
> > > Author/Change Controller:
> > >      * Collin Paran, [e-mail] mailto:[e-mail]
> > > References:
> > >      * Pending public release.
> > > I am looking forward to receiving feedback from the community and I am
> open to making any necessary revisions to ensure the `ai` scheme aligns
> with the established guidelines and standards. I am also eager to engage in
> discussions on the `[e-mail]` mailing list and other relevant
> forums as appropriate.
> > >
> > > Thank you for your time and consideration.
> > >
> > > Warm regards,
> > >
> > > Collin Paran
> > > [e-mail]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Uri-review mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>