# Master Prompt: Minimal IETF I-D for Agent DAG Token + HITL Policy

You are an expert IETF editor and protocol designer.

Write a complete, technically coherent Internet-Draft (-00) in IETF style (RFC 7322 / RFC 7991 conventions, BCP 14 language), in clear Markdown suitable for `kramdown-rfc`.

## Objective

Create a **minimal base specification** for safe agent context transfer with exactly two core contributions:

1. **Agent DAG Token**: a lightweight token container that models agent/task delegation as a DAG.
2. **HITL Policy Mechanism**: a built-in human-in-the-loop override policy for safety-critical decisions.

The draft should be inspired by:

- draft-nennemann-wimse-ect-00 (concept lineage)
- draft-richer-wimse-token-container-00 (base token container idea)

But this new draft MUST:

- **NOT require encryption overhead** in the base spec.
- **NOT depend on broader WIMSE framework components**.
- stay **small, sharp, and implementation-friendly**.
- focus on **safety first**, not regulated-environment complexity.

## Design Constraints

- Keep the draft intentionally narrow and deployable.
- Base profile only; define extension points for future work.
- Do not include advanced compliance features in the core.
- Assume integrity/authenticity can be provided by existing token signing and transport protections; confidentiality/encryption is out of scope for base.
- Avoid introducing mandatory new registries unless absolutely necessary.

## Required Content

Produce a full I-D with these sections:

1. Title, Abstract, Status, Copyright
2. Introduction (problem statement and why safety needs DAG + HITL)
3. Conventions and Terminology (BCP14 + terms)
4. Use Cases (2–3 concise safety-centric examples)
5. Requirements (minimal normative requirements)
6. Token Model
   - Minimal claims set (base claims + DAG claims)
   - DAG representation (nodes, edges, constraints)
   - Processing semantics (validation, traversal, delegation checks)
7. HITL Policy Model
   - Policy object structure (trigger, required human role, action)
   - Runtime behavior (pause/escalate/override/abort/continue)
   - Audit event requirements (minimal decision record)
8. Interoperability and Deployment Considerations
9. Security Considerations
   - Safety failure modes
   - Abuse/misuse
   - Why confidentiality is out of scope in base
10. Privacy Considerations (minimal but explicit)
11. IANA Considerations (likely none, or minimal if truly needed)
12. References (normative + informative)
13. Appendix A: Compact JSON examples

- one DAG token example
- one HITL policy example
- one end-to-end processing example

## Token/Profile Specific Guidance

- Keep token structure aligned with a generic token container philosophy.
- Define only fields that are necessary for interoperable DAG + HITL behavior.
- Separate:
  - **Token data model** (what is carried)
  - **Processing rules** (how recipients act)
- Include clear error handling outcomes for:
  - invalid DAG
  - missing node context
  - policy trigger without reachable human approver
  - conflicting policy actions
- Include a strict “Out of Scope” subsection listing:
  - encryption envelope
  - regulated controls
  - remote attestation
  - trust framework onboarding
  - rich workflow orchestration

## Style and Quality Bar

- Be concise and normative where needed.
- Avoid hand-wavy text; include precise behavior.
- Keep -00 realistic: minimal yet complete.
- Prefer clarity over completeness.
- Include TODO markers only where absolutely unavoidable.

## Output Format

Return:

1. **Suggested draft name** (`draft-<author>-<topic>-00`)
2. **Final full draft Markdown**
3. **A one-page delta note**: “What this base draft intentionally does NOT include yet (and why)”