# IETF Senior Review

## Findings

### High: the draft still reads more like a design sketch than a publishable Internet-Draft

The overall structure is right, but several sections stop at high-level intent. A publishable draft needs more disciplined distinction between required behavior, optional behavior, and explanatory rationale. Sections 5 through 8 are closest to publishable, but they still need slightly more rigor.

### Medium: the abstract is acceptable but could better state the interoperability problem and deployment value

The current abstract says what the document defines, but it could more directly explain why existing agent systems fail to interoperate during recovery and why this document matters.

### Medium: References and IANA sections are too provisional

It is fine to keep placeholders at this stage, but the text currently signals that core dependencies are undecided. Before wider circulation, the draft should either name the expected adjacent substrate or state clearly that no substrate dependency is required.

### Medium: terminology is mostly clean, but some items still need RFC-style definition form

The terms are understandable, yet a few are written more like explanations than stable definitions. Tightening the definition style would help the document feel more standards-native.

## Open questions

- Does the draft intend to progress as a standalone individual draft or as part of a family with a shared terminology base?
- Should the document explicitly call itself Experimental in the introduction rather than only in external cycle metadata?

## Residual publishability risk

This is a credible start. The remaining publishability risk is not the idea; it is the need for one more iteration of standards-style precision and dependency cleanup.
