Dear Dr. Emirdag,

Congratulations on the publication of draft-emirdag-scitt-ai-agent-execution-00 earlier today. I came across it while tracking SCITT-adjacent work on AI agent accountability, and I wanted to reach out because the positioning looks genuinely complementary to a pair of drafts I have been developing.

Brief introduction: I am Christian Nennemann, an independent researcher working on execution-context and lifecycle tokens for agentic systems. My current IETF work consists of:

- draft-nennemann-act-01 (Agent Context Token): a JWT-based two-phase lifecycle — a pre-execution Mandate token carrying authorization, scope, and input commitments, followed by a post-execution Record token committing to outputs and linking back via `pred`. Multiple Records form a DAG, signed with Ed25519 or ES256.
- draft-nennemann-wimse-ect-02 (Execution Context Token): a WIMSE profile with three assurance levels and identity binding for the workload that produced a given execution.

Reading your AIR specification, the layering seems fairly clean: ACT defines *what* is being anchored — the lifecycle token with its authorization proof, input/output commitments, and causal predecessor links — while AIR defines *how* it is anchored on a SCITT transparency service as a COSE_Sign1 payload with its hash-chain, four-step verification, and EU AI Act / NIST AI RMF mappings. There is real conceptual overlap on input/output hashing, reasoning capture, identity, timing, and causality, which suggests that coordinating now would save both of us retrofitting later.

A few concrete options, in rough order of effort:

(a) Cross-citations in both drafts, establishing the "ACT record → AIR payload → SCITT receipt" flow as the intended pipeline.
(b) A short shared section on "Anchoring ACT Records in SCITT" — either folded into ACT-02 or as a small companion draft if you prefer neutral ground.
(c) Aligning claim semantics where they overlap — in particular input/output hash representation (I currently use `inp_hash` / `out_hash`, JWT-side) so that translation to AIR is lossless.
(d) If we both attend IETF 123, a joint slot in SCITT or a side meeting could make the layering concrete for the WG.

I would be happy to send you the current ACT and ECT drafts and to review yours in detail before either of us adds formal cross-references. Low-pressure — mainly wanted to flag the alignment while the drafts are still malleable.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Best regards,
Christian Nennemann
Independent Researcher
[contact details]

---

**Suggested subject line:** Liaison proposal: ACT/ECT lifecycle tokens and SCITT-AI AIR — complementary layering