Add ASCII art figures to all 6 generated Internet-Drafts
Each draft gets 2 illustrative figures: - ABVP: architecture components + verification workflow - ATD: example DAG structure + execution state transitions - HITL: primitive framework overview + approval workflow sequence - AEM/PPALP: federated learning architecture + aggregation flow - RARP: cross-domain architecture + two-phase rollback protocol - APAE: layered architecture + cross-domain provenance tracking Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -299,6 +299,21 @@ Table of Contents
|
|||||||
with existing agent authentication and authorization frameworks as
|
with existing agent authentication and authorization frameworks as
|
||||||
defined in [RFC6749] and referenced in [draft-aylward-aiga-1].
|
defined in [RFC6749] and referenced in [draft-aylward-aiga-1].
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
+----------+ +--------------+ +-------------+
|
||||||
|
| | | Behavior | | |
|
||||||
|
| Agent |--->| Attestation |--->| Verification|
|
||||||
|
| | | Engine | | Registry |
|
||||||
|
+----------+ +------+-------+ +------+------+
|
||||||
|
| |
|
||||||
|
v v
|
||||||
|
+------+-------+ +------+------+
|
||||||
|
| Behavior | | Trust |
|
||||||
|
| Traces | | Anchor |
|
||||||
|
| (signed) | | Management |
|
||||||
|
+--------------+ +-------------+
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Figure 1: ABVP Architecture Components
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The Behavior Attestation Engine (BAE) serves as the core component
|
The Behavior Attestation Engine (BAE) serves as the core component
|
||||||
responsible for capturing agent behavior traces and generating
|
responsible for capturing agent behavior traces and generating
|
||||||
cryptographic attestations. Each BAE MUST maintain a secure
|
cryptographic attestations. Each BAE MUST maintain a secure
|
||||||
@@ -511,6 +526,23 @@ Table of Contents
|
|||||||
existing authorization frameworks while providing the behavioral
|
existing authorization frameworks while providing the behavioral
|
||||||
assurance layer necessary for autonomous agent operations.
|
assurance layer necessary for autonomous agent operations.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Agent BAE Registry Verifier
|
||||||
|
| | | |
|
||||||
|
|--action-->| | |
|
||||||
|
| |--trace------>| |
|
||||||
|
| |--attest----->| |
|
||||||
|
| | | |
|
||||||
|
| | |<--query-----|
|
||||||
|
| | |---proof---->|
|
||||||
|
| | | |--eval
|
||||||
|
| | | |
|
||||||
|
| | | [batch] |
|
||||||
|
| | |<--audit-----|
|
||||||
|
| | |---report--->|
|
||||||
|
| | | |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Figure 2: Real-time Verification Workflow
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Real-time verification workflows enable immediate assessment of
|
Real-time verification workflows enable immediate assessment of
|
||||||
agent behavior during active operations. When an agent initiates
|
agent behavior during active operations. When an agent initiates
|
||||||
actions that require behavioral validation, the Behavior
|
actions that require behavioral validation, the Behavior
|
||||||
|
|||||||
@@ -337,6 +337,29 @@ Table of Contents
|
|||||||
architectural levels to provide defense-in-depth protection
|
architectural levels to provide defense-in-depth protection
|
||||||
against information leakage.
|
against information leakage.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Tenant A Tenant B Tenant C
|
||||||
|
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
|
||||||
|
| Agent | | Agent | | Agent |
|
||||||
|
| Local | | Local | | Local |
|
||||||
|
| Model | | Model | | Model |
|
||||||
|
+---+----+ +---+----+ +---+----+
|
||||||
|
| | |
|
||||||
|
v v v
|
||||||
|
+---+----+ +---+----+ +---+----+
|
||||||
|
| DP | | DP | | DP |
|
||||||
|
| Noise | | Noise | | Noise |
|
||||||
|
+---+----+ +---+----+ +---+----+
|
||||||
|
| | |
|
||||||
|
+-------+-------+-------+------+
|
||||||
|
| |
|
||||||
|
+----+-----+ +----+------+
|
||||||
|
| Secure | | Privacy |
|
||||||
|
| Aggre- | | Compliance|
|
||||||
|
| gation | | Verifier |
|
||||||
|
+----------+ +-----------+
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Figure 1: PPALP Federated Learning Architecture
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The PPALP architecture defines four primary component roles that
|
The PPALP architecture defines four primary component roles that
|
||||||
collectively ensure privacy-preserving federated learning
|
collectively ensure privacy-preserving federated learning
|
||||||
operations. The Federated Coordinator serves as the central
|
operations. The Federated Coordinator serves as the central
|
||||||
@@ -471,6 +494,23 @@ Table of Contents
|
|||||||
computational efficiency suitable for practical federated learning
|
computational efficiency suitable for practical federated learning
|
||||||
deployments.
|
deployments.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Agent_i Aggregator Verifier
|
||||||
|
| | |
|
||||||
|
|--local grad--->| |
|
||||||
|
| + DP noise | |
|
||||||
|
| | |
|
||||||
|
| [...N agents contribute...] |
|
||||||
|
| | |
|
||||||
|
| |--aggregate---->|
|
||||||
|
| | model update |
|
||||||
|
| | |
|
||||||
|
| |<--ZK proof-----|
|
||||||
|
| | compliance |
|
||||||
|
|<--global upd---| |
|
||||||
|
| | |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Figure 2: Privacy-Preserving Aggregation Flow
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The Multi-Tenant Federated Averaging mechanism serves as the
|
The Multi-Tenant Federated Averaging mechanism serves as the
|
||||||
foundation for secure parameter aggregation. Each tenant's Privacy
|
foundation for secure parameter aggregation. Each tenant's Privacy
|
||||||
Compliance Verifier MUST encrypt their differentially-private
|
Compliance Verifier MUST encrypt their differentially-private
|
||||||
|
|||||||
@@ -370,6 +370,28 @@ Table of Contents
|
|||||||
to implement provenance assurance incrementally without disrupting
|
to implement provenance assurance incrementally without disrupting
|
||||||
existing agent ecosystems.
|
existing agent ecosystems.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
+------------------------------------------------+
|
||||||
|
| Provenance Query Layer |
|
||||||
|
| (cross-domain search, history retrieval) |
|
||||||
|
+------------------------------------------------+
|
||||||
|
| Cross-Domain Tracking Layer |
|
||||||
|
| (gateway coordination, chain linking) |
|
||||||
|
+------------------------------------------------+
|
||||||
|
| Operational Audit Layer |
|
||||||
|
| (action logging, decision trails) |
|
||||||
|
+------------------------------------------------+
|
||||||
|
| Capability Verification Layer |
|
||||||
|
| (skill attestation, scope validation) |
|
||||||
|
+------------------------------------------------+
|
||||||
|
| Identity Attestation Layer |
|
||||||
|
| (agent ID, key management, TEE binding) |
|
||||||
|
+------------------------------------------------+
|
||||||
|
| Trust Infrastructure Layer |
|
||||||
|
| (PKI, trust anchors, revocation) |
|
||||||
|
+------------------------------------------------+
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Figure 1: APAE Layered Architecture
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The Identity Attestation Layer serves as the foundational trust
|
The Identity Attestation Layer serves as the foundational trust
|
||||||
anchor for the APAE framework, establishing and maintaining
|
anchor for the APAE framework, establishing and maintaining
|
||||||
verifiable agent identities throughout their operational
|
verifiable agent identities throughout their operational
|
||||||
@@ -683,6 +705,19 @@ Table of Contents
|
|||||||
established protocols and standards while extending them with
|
established protocols and standards while extending them with
|
||||||
agent-specific provenance metadata and verification mechanisms.
|
agent-specific provenance metadata and verification mechanisms.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Origin Org Gateway Target Org
|
||||||
|
+----------+ +---------+ +----------+
|
||||||
|
| Agent | |Provnce | | Verifier |
|
||||||
|
| Registry |--->| Bridge |--->| Registry |
|
||||||
|
+----+-----+ +----+----+ +----+-----+
|
||||||
|
| | |
|
||||||
|
+----+-----+ +----+----+ +----+-----+
|
||||||
|
|Provenance| | Chain | |Provenance|
|
||||||
|
| Record |--->| Linker |--->| Record |
|
||||||
|
+----------+ +---------+ +----------+
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Figure 2: Cross-Domain Provenance Tracking
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Integration with OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect ecosystems follows
|
Integration with OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect ecosystems follows
|
||||||
the Agent Authorization Profile (AAP) [draft-aap-oauth-profile]
|
the Agent Authorization Profile (AAP) [draft-aap-oauth-profile]
|
||||||
extension pattern. Existing OAuth 2.0 authorization servers can be
|
extension pattern. Existing OAuth 2.0 authorization servers can be
|
||||||
|
|||||||
@@ -319,6 +319,30 @@ Table of Contents
|
|||||||
gateway-intercomm-framework] to provide cross-domain rollback
|
gateway-intercomm-framework] to provide cross-domain rollback
|
||||||
coordination capabilities.
|
coordination capabilities.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Domain A Domain B
|
||||||
|
+---------------------+ +---------------------+
|
||||||
|
| +------+ +------+ | | +------+ +------+ |
|
||||||
|
| |Agt 1 | |Agt 2 | | | |Agt 3 | |Agt 4 | |
|
||||||
|
| +--+---+ +--+---+ | | +--+---+ +--+---+ |
|
||||||
|
| | | | | | | |
|
||||||
|
| +--+---------+----+ | | +--+---------+----+ |
|
||||||
|
| |Checkpoint Manager| | | |Checkpoint Manager| |
|
||||||
|
| +--------+---------+ | | +--------+---------+ |
|
||||||
|
| | | | | |
|
||||||
|
| +--------+---------+ | | +--------+---------+ |
|
||||||
|
| |Rollback Coordintr| | | |Rollback Coordintr| |
|
||||||
|
| +--------+---------+ | | +--------+---------+ |
|
||||||
|
+----------|------------+ +----------|------------+
|
||||||
|
| |
|
||||||
|
+----------+ +--------------+
|
||||||
|
| |
|
||||||
|
+----+--+----+
|
||||||
|
| Agent |
|
||||||
|
| Gateway |
|
||||||
|
+------------+
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Figure 1: RARP Cross-Domain Architecture
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The core RARP architecture consists of three primary component
|
The core RARP architecture consists of three primary component
|
||||||
types: Rollback Coordinators, Checkpoint Managers, and Agent
|
types: Rollback Coordinators, Checkpoint Managers, and Agent
|
||||||
Rollback Interfaces. Rollback Coordinators serve as the
|
Rollback Interfaces. Rollback Coordinators serve as the
|
||||||
@@ -461,6 +485,28 @@ Table of Contents
|
|||||||
to validate the rollback request against their local checkpoint
|
to validate the rollback request against their local checkpoint
|
||||||
metadata.
|
metadata.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Coordinator Agent A Agent B Agent C
|
||||||
|
| | | |
|
||||||
|
|--PREPARE---->| | |
|
||||||
|
|--PREPARE---------------->| |
|
||||||
|
|--PREPARE------------------------------>|
|
||||||
|
| | | |
|
||||||
|
|<--READY------| | |
|
||||||
|
|<--READY------------------| |
|
||||||
|
|<--READY---------------------------------|
|
||||||
|
| | | |
|
||||||
|
|--COMMIT----->| | |
|
||||||
|
|--COMMIT----------------->| |
|
||||||
|
|--COMMIT------------------------------->|
|
||||||
|
| | | |
|
||||||
|
| (rollback) | (rollback) | (rollback) |
|
||||||
|
| | | |
|
||||||
|
|<--DONE-------| | |
|
||||||
|
|<--DONE-------------------| |
|
||||||
|
|<--DONE---------------------------------|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Figure 2: Two-Phase Coordinated Rollback
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The coordination messaging framework builds upon the Cross-Domain
|
The coordination messaging framework builds upon the Cross-Domain
|
||||||
Agent Collaboration Protocol [draft-han-rtgwg-agent-gateway-
|
Agent Collaboration Protocol [draft-han-rtgwg-agent-gateway-
|
||||||
intercomm-framework] to enable rollback operations across
|
intercomm-framework] to enable rollback operations across
|
||||||
|
|||||||
@@ -310,6 +310,33 @@ Table of Contents
|
|||||||
execution parameters that govern how the workflow should be
|
execution parameters that govern how the workflow should be
|
||||||
processed.
|
processed.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
+-----------+
|
||||||
|
| Task A |
|
||||||
|
| (ingest) |
|
||||||
|
+-----+-----+
|
||||||
|
/ \
|
||||||
|
/ \
|
||||||
|
v v
|
||||||
|
+---------+ +---------+
|
||||||
|
| Task B | | Task C |
|
||||||
|
| (parse) | |(enrich) |
|
||||||
|
+----+----+ +----+----+
|
||||||
|
\ /
|
||||||
|
\ /
|
||||||
|
v v
|
||||||
|
+-----------+
|
||||||
|
| Task D |
|
||||||
|
| (merge) |
|
||||||
|
+-----+-----+
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
v
|
||||||
|
+-----------+
|
||||||
|
| Task E |
|
||||||
|
| (report) |
|
||||||
|
+-----------+
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Figure 1: Example Agent Task DAG Structure
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Task nodes within the DAG represent atomic units of work that can
|
Task nodes within the DAG represent atomic units of work that can
|
||||||
be executed by autonomous agents. Each task node MUST specify its
|
be executed by autonomous agents. Each task node MUST specify its
|
||||||
execution requirements, including required agent capabilities,
|
execution requirements, including required agent capabilities,
|
||||||
@@ -386,6 +413,18 @@ Table of Contents
|
|||||||
alternate execution paths depending on the configured failure
|
alternate execution paths depending on the configured failure
|
||||||
handling policies.
|
handling policies.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
+---------+ deps met +-------+ assign +----------+
|
||||||
|
| Pending |----------->| Ready |--------->|Executing |
|
||||||
|
+---------+ +---+---+ +----+--+--+
|
||||||
|
| | |
|
||||||
|
| skip fail| |ok
|
||||||
|
v v v
|
||||||
|
+--------+ +------+--+---+
|
||||||
|
|Skipped | |Failed|Compl.|
|
||||||
|
+--------+ +------+------+
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Figure 2: Task Node Execution State Transitions
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Integration with existing agent protocols occurs through
|
Integration with existing agent protocols occurs through
|
||||||
standardized interfaces that abstract the underlying communication
|
standardized interfaces that abstract the underlying communication
|
||||||
mechanisms. The framework MUST support protocol-agnostic bindings
|
mechanisms. The framework MUST support protocol-agnostic bindings
|
||||||
|
|||||||
@@ -308,6 +308,32 @@ Table of Contents
|
|||||||
these primitives to be composed into comprehensive oversight
|
these primitives to be composed into comprehensive oversight
|
||||||
systems tailored to specific operational requirements.
|
systems tailored to specific operational requirements.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
+-----------------------+
|
||||||
|
| AI Agent Decision |
|
||||||
|
| Loop |
|
||||||
|
+-----------+-----------+
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
v
|
||||||
|
+-----------+-----------+
|
||||||
|
| Decision Point |
|
||||||
|
| Evaluator |
|
||||||
|
+-----------+-----------+
|
||||||
|
/ | \
|
||||||
|
/ | \
|
||||||
|
v v v
|
||||||
|
+------+ +------+ +---------+
|
||||||
|
|Appro-| |Over- | |Explain- |
|
||||||
|
| val | |ride | |ability |
|
||||||
|
+--+---+ +--+---+ +----+----+
|
||||||
|
| | |
|
||||||
|
v v v
|
||||||
|
+--+--------+-----+ +-+--------+
|
||||||
|
| Human Operator | | Audit |
|
||||||
|
| Interface | | Log |
|
||||||
|
+------------------+ +---------+
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Figure 1: HITL Primitive Framework Overview
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
At the architectural level, HITL primitives integrate with agent
|
At the architectural level, HITL primitives integrate with agent
|
||||||
systems through well-defined decision points where human
|
systems through well-defined decision points where human
|
||||||
intervention may be required. These decision points are identified
|
intervention may be required. These decision points are identified
|
||||||
@@ -355,6 +381,24 @@ Table of Contents
|
|||||||
preserving operational efficiency through selective intervention
|
preserving operational efficiency through selective intervention
|
||||||
points.
|
points.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Agent HITL Middleware Human Operator
|
||||||
|
| | |
|
||||||
|
|--action----->| |
|
||||||
|
| request |--approval req---->|
|
||||||
|
| | +context, risk |
|
||||||
|
| | |
|
||||||
|
| |<---approve/deny---|
|
||||||
|
| | +auth token |
|
||||||
|
|<--result-----| |
|
||||||
|
| proceed | |
|
||||||
|
| or halt | |
|
||||||
|
| | |
|
||||||
|
| [timeout] | |
|
||||||
|
|<--fallback---| |
|
||||||
|
| | |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Figure 2: Approval Workflow Sequence
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The core approval request structure MUST include the proposed
|
The core approval request structure MUST include the proposed
|
||||||
action description, associated risk assessment, relevant context
|
action description, associated risk assessment, relevant context
|
||||||
for human evaluation, and expected execution timeline. Each
|
for human evaluation, and expected execution timeline. Each
|
||||||
|
|||||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user