Files
Christian Nennemann 2506b6325a
Some checks failed
CI / test (3.11) (push) Failing after 1m37s
CI / test (3.12) (push) Failing after 57s
feat: add draft data, gap analysis report, and workspace config
2026-04-06 18:47:15 +02:00

99 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
# 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 (23 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)”