# IETF Draft Analyzer Track, categorize, rate, and visualize AI/agent-related IETF Internet-Drafts. **260 drafts** analyzed across **19 categories** with **403 authors**, **1,262 extracted ideas**, and **12 identified gaps** — spanning June 2025 to February 2026. ## What This Does The IETF is experiencing an unprecedented wave of standardization activity around AI agents. This tool provides a quantitative lens on that activity: - **Fetches** draft metadata and full text from the IETF Datatracker API - **Rates** each draft on 5 dimensions (novelty, maturity, overlap, momentum, relevance) using Claude - **Embeds** drafts with Ollama for pairwise similarity and clustering - **Extracts** discrete technical ideas and identifies landscape gaps - **Maps** the author collaboration network and organizational affiliations - **Generates** interactive visualizations, markdown reports, and a filterable browser - **Produces** publication-ready figures for an arXiv paper ## Quick Start ```bash # Install pip install -e . # Set your API key (or add to .env file) export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=sk-ant-... # Fetch drafts from IETF Datatracker ietf fetch # Rate all unrated drafts with Claude ietf analyze --all # Generate embeddings (requires Ollama running locally) ietf embed # Extract technical ideas ietf ideas --all # Identify gaps in the landscape ietf gaps # Generate all visualizations ietf viz all # Open the interactive browser xdg-open data/figures/browser.html ``` ## CLI Commands ### Core Pipeline | Command | Description | |---------|-------------| | `ietf fetch` | Fetch AI/agent drafts from IETF Datatracker | | `ietf analyze --all` | Rate all unrated drafts using Claude (5 dimensions + summary) | | `ietf embed` | Generate semantic embeddings via Ollama | | `ietf ideas --all` | Extract technical ideas from drafts using Claude | | `ietf gaps` | Identify under-addressed areas in the landscape | | `ietf authors --fetch` | Fetch author/affiliation data from Datatracker | ### Exploration | Command | Description | |---------|-------------| | `ietf list` | List tracked drafts | | `ietf show ` | Show detailed info for a specific draft | | `ietf search ` | Full-text search across all stored drafts | | `ietf similar ` | Find the most similar drafts by embedding similarity | | `ietf clusters` | Find clusters of near-duplicate drafts | | `ietf compare ...` | Compare drafts for overlap and unique contributions | | `ietf authors` | Show top authors and their draft counts | | `ietf network` | Show organizational collaboration network | ### Visualizations (`ietf viz`) All outputs go to `data/figures/`. Interactive charts are standalone HTML files (no server needed). | Command | Output | Format | |---------|--------|--------| | `ietf viz all` | Generate everything below | mixed | | `ietf viz browser` | Filterable draft browser with search, category chips, score sliders | HTML | | `ietf viz landscape` | t-SNE/UMAP 2D scatter of all drafts colored by category | HTML | | `ietf viz heatmap` | 260x260 clustered pairwise similarity matrix | PNG | | `ietf viz distributions` | Violin plots for all 5 rating dimensions by category | PNG | | `ietf viz timeline` | Stacked area chart of monthly submissions by category | HTML | | `ietf viz bubble` | Novelty vs Maturity explorer (size=relevance, color=category) | HTML | | `ietf viz radar` | Average rating profile per category | HTML | | `ietf viz network` | Author co-authorship force-directed graph | HTML | | `ietf viz treemap` | Category composition treemap (color=avg score) | HTML | | `ietf viz quality` | Score vs uniqueness with quadrant annotations | HTML | | `ietf viz orgs` | Organization contribution horizontal bar chart | HTML | | `ietf viz ideas` | Ideas frequency by type | HTML | ### Reports (`ietf report`) Markdown reports saved to `data/reports/`. | Command | Description | |---------|-------------| | `ietf report overview` | Sortable table of all rated drafts with bar-chart scores | | `ietf report landscape` | Category-grouped view with per-category rankings | | `ietf report timeline` | Monthly submission volume and category trends | | `ietf report overlap-matrix` | Top similar pairs, per-category overlap, cross-category matrix | | `ietf report authors` | Top authors, organizations, collaboration pairs | | `ietf report digest` | Weekly digest of recently fetched drafts | | `ietf report ideas` | Most common ideas, unique ideas, ideas by type | ### Other | Command | Description | |---------|-------------| | `ietf draft-gen ` | Generate an Internet-Draft addressing a landscape gap | | `ietf config` | Show or modify configuration | ## Rating System Each draft is scored 1-5 on five dimensions: | Dimension | What it measures | |-----------|-----------------| | **Novelty** | Originality relative to existing standards | | **Maturity** | Completeness of specification | | **Overlap** | Redundancy with other drafts (5 = heavily overlapping) | | **Momentum** | Community engagement, revisions, adoption | | **Relevance** | Importance to the AI/agent ecosystem | **Composite score:** ``` score = 0.30 * novelty + 0.25 * relevance + 0.20 * maturity + 0.15 * momentum + 0.10 * (6 - overlap) ``` ## Key Findings - **36x growth** in 9 months (2 drafts/month to 72) - **7.9% of draft pairs** exceed 0.80 cosine similarity — significant redundancy - **Safety deficit**: AI safety proposals (36) are vastly outnumbered by protocol proposals (290+) - **Organizational concentration**: Top 5 orgs contribute ~35% of all drafts - **1,262 technical ideas** extracted across 6 types (mechanism, architecture, protocol, pattern, extension, requirement) - **12 identified gaps** in the current landscape (3 critical, 6 high, 3 medium) ## Gap Analysis Claude-powered gap analysis identifies 12 under-addressed areas across the 260-draft landscape. Each gap is cross-referenced with the drafts and ideas that partially touch on the topic, highlighting where effort is concentrated and where it's missing. ### Critical Gaps | # | Gap | Category | Drafts in Category | Key Issue | |--:|-----|----------|-------------------:|-----------| | 1 | **Agent Resource Management** | Autonomous netops | 60 | No framework for scheduling, quotas, or fair allocation when agents compete for compute, memory, and bandwidth. Drafts focus on communication but ignore resource contention in multi-agent environments. | | 2 | **Agent Behavior Verification** | AI safety/alignment | 36 | No runtime mechanisms to verify that deployed agents actually behave according to declared policies. Gap between stated capabilities and observed behavior. Closest work: `draft-birkholz-verifiable-agent-conversations` (attestation), `draft-aylward-daap-v2` (accountability). | | 3 | **Agent Error Recovery & Rollback** | Autonomous netops | 60 | Missing standards for cascading failure recovery and rollback of autonomous decisions. Only `draft-yue-anima-agent-recovery-networks` specifically addresses recovery; `draft-srijal-agents-policy` touches mandatory failure behavior. | ### High-Severity Gaps | # | Gap | Category | Drafts in Category | Key Issue | |--:|-----|----------|-------------------:|-----------| | 4 | **Cross-Protocol Translation** | A2A protocols | 92 | 92 competing A2A protocol drafts with high overlap but no universal translation layer or negotiation mechanism for interoperability between them. | | 5 | **Agent Lifecycle Management** | Agent discovery/reg | 57 | Registration and discovery are covered but no standards for agent versioning, updates, graceful shutdown, or retirement without disrupting dependent services. | | 6 | **Multi-Agent Consensus** | A2A protocols | 92 | No framework for groups of agents to reach consensus on conflicting decisions. Closest: `draft-li-dmsc-inf-architecture` (DMSC protocol), `draft-takagi-srta-trinity` (SRTA architecture). | | 7 | **Human Override & Intervention** | Human-agent interaction | 22 | Only 22 drafts (vs 60 autonomous netops) address human-agent interaction. No emergency override protocols. Best effort: `draft-irtf-nmrg-llm-nm` (human-in-the-loop framework). | | 8 | **Cross-Domain Security Boundaries** | Agent identity/auth | 98 | Missing frameworks for agents operating across security domains with different trust levels. `draft-diaconu-agents-authz-info-sharing` and `draft-cui-dmsc-agent-cdi` are early attempts but lack enforcement mechanisms. | | 9 | **Dynamic Trust & Reputation** | Agent identity/auth | 98 | Static certificate-based auth is insufficient for long-running autonomous systems. No dynamic trust scoring or reputation tracking. Closest: `draft-cosmos-protocol-specification` (trust scoring), `draft-jiang-seat-dynamic-attestation`. | ### Medium-Severity Gaps | # | Gap | Category | Drafts in Category | Key Issue | |--:|-----|----------|-------------------:|-----------| | 10 | **Agent Performance Monitoring** | Autonomous netops | 60 | No standardized metrics, SLOs, or observability framework for production agent deployments. `draft-fu-nmop-agent-communication-framework` mentions monitoring but doesn't define standards. | | 11 | **Agent Explainability** | AI safety/alignment | 36 | No protocols for agents to explain decisions to other agents or humans. Critical for debugging and regulatory compliance. Only 36 safety drafts total. | | 12 | **Agent Data Provenance** | Data formats/interop | 102 | No standards for tracking data lineage as information flows between agents. 102 data format drafts but none address provenance tracking. | ### Gap Coverage Ratio The safety deficit is the most striking finding — only **12.3%** of categorized drafts (36/292) address AI safety/alignment, while 92 focus on A2A protocols and 60 on autonomous operations. The ratio of "how to do things" to "how to do things safely" is roughly **7:1**. ## Tech Stack - **Python 3.11+** with Click CLI - **SQLite** with FTS5 full-text search and WAL mode - **Anthropic Claude** (Sonnet 4) for analysis, rating, idea extraction, gap analysis - **Ollama** (nomic-embed-text) for local embeddings and similarity - **Plotly** for interactive HTML visualizations - **Matplotlib/Seaborn** for publication-ready static figures - **NetworkX** for author collaboration graph analysis - **NumPy/SciPy/scikit-learn** for similarity computation and dimensionality reduction ## Project Structure ``` src/ietf_analyzer/ cli.py # Click CLI entry point (all commands) fetcher.py # IETF Datatracker API client analyzer.py # Claude-based analysis, rating, idea extraction, gap analysis embeddings.py # Ollama embeddings + cosine similarity + clustering db.py # SQLite with FTS5 (7 tables: drafts, ratings, embeddings, llm_cache, authors, draft_authors, ideas, gaps) models.py # Author, Draft, Rating dataclasses reports.py # Markdown report generation visualize.py # Interactive HTML + static PNG visualizations authors.py # AuthorNetwork: Datatracker author fetching, collaboration graph draftgen.py # Internet-Draft generation from gap analysis config.py # Configuration with defaults data/ drafts.db # SQLite database (all analysis data) reports/ # Generated markdown reports figures/ # Generated visualizations (HTML + PNG) paper/ main.tex # arXiv paper: "The AI Agent Standardization Wave" export_figures.py # Export interactive charts to static images Makefile # Build: make pdf ``` ## Database Schema | Table | Purpose | Records | |-------|---------|--------:| | `drafts` | Draft metadata + full text | 260 | | `ratings` | 5-dimension AI ratings + summary | 260 | | `embeddings` | Semantic vectors (nomic-embed-text) | 260 | | `llm_cache` | Claude API response cache | ~500 | | `authors` | Person records from Datatracker | 403 | | `draft_authors` | Author-draft relationships | 742 | | `ideas` | Extracted technical ideas | 1,262 | | `gaps` | Gap analysis results | 12 | | `drafts_fts` | FTS5 full-text search index | — | ## arXiv Paper A 13-page paper is included in `paper/main.tex`: > **The AI Agent Standardization Wave: A Quantitative Analysis of 260 IETF Internet-Drafts on Autonomous Agents and Artificial Intelligence** Build with: ```bash cd paper python3 export_figures.py # copy/export figures pdflatex main.tex # compile (run twice for references) ``` ## Configuration ```bash # Show current config ietf config # Change Claude model ietf config --set claude_model claude-sonnet-4-20250514 # API key via .env file (auto-loaded) echo "ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=sk-ant-..." > .env ``` ## Cost Full analysis of 260 drafts consumed ~475K API tokens (rating + idea extraction + gap analysis). At current Sonnet pricing, this is approximately $2-3 USD. ## License MIT