ietf-draft-analyzer/workspace/STRATEGY.md

ACT + ECT IETF Strategy

Author: Christian Nennemann Date: 2026-04-12 Status: Active

---

1. Executive Summary

Two Internet-Drafts, one strategy: ACT (general) + ECT (WIMSE profile) as a complementary spec family for AI agent authorization and execution accountability.

The window: In the last 8 weeks, 14+ competing IETF individual drafts and 7+ high-relevance arXiv papers appeared. The space is crowding fast. Ship -01/-02 within 2 weeks; establish IETF 123 (July 2026) as the landing point.

The position: ACT is the only spec combining (a) two-phase JWT lifecycle, (b) DAG-based DAG predecessor structure, and (c) standards-track independence from proprietary agent frameworks. ECT is the only WIMSE-aligned execution-context spec.

---

2. Current State (What We Have)

Artifacts in place

Artifact	Location	Status
ACT draft	packages/act/draft-nennemann-act-01.md	-01, ready to review
ECT draft	drafts/ietf-wimse-ect/draft-nennemann-wimse-ect.md	-02, needs HTTP header update
ACT refimpl	packages/act/ (ietf-act)	103 tests pass, pred + Context rename done
ECT refimpl	packages/ect/ (ietf-ect)	56 tests pass, inp_hash bug fixed
ACT applicability section	In draft §1.5	MCP, OpenAI, LangGraph, A2A, CrewAI, WIMSE-ECT
Diff doc vs Txn-Agents	drafts/ietf-wimse-ect/DIFF-vs-txn-tokens-for-agents.md	Done, ~1235 words
WIMSE mailing list email	drafts/ietf-wimse-ect/wimse-intro-email.md	Done, ~390 words

Recent completed work

• par → pred rename across ACT (spec alignment with ECT)
• "Agent Compact Token" → "Agent Context Token" rename (semantic alignment with ECT)
• Package restructure to workspace/packages/{act,ect}/
• ECT inp_hash format bug fix (removed sha-256: prefix)

---

3. Landscape (What Just Happened)

Critical drafts published April 7–11, 2026

Draft	Impact	Response
draft-emirdag-scitt-ai-agent-execution-00	SCITT profile for AgentInteractionRecord (AIR)	Propose liaison: ACT = lifecycle, AIR = anchor payload
draft-oauth-transaction-tokens-for-agents-06	Amazon's actchain competes with ACT's DAG	Differentiate: linear chain vs DAG (fork/join)
draft-ietf-wimse-http-signature-03	Wimse-Audience header removed → wimse-aud param	Breaking change — fix ECT immediately
draft-ietf-oauth-transaction-tokens-08	In WG Last Call → RFC imminent	Lock references before publication
draft-ietf-scitt-architecture-22	In AUTH48 → RFC imminent	Update SCITT refs to RFC number

Competitive arXiv papers (Mar–Apr 2026)

• 2603.24775 (AIP/IBCTs) — closest technical competitor, JWT + Biscuit/Datalog, zero auth on ~2000 MCP servers
• 2604.02767 (SentinelAgent) — formal Delegation Chain Calculus
• 2509.13597 (Agentic JWT) — prior linear chain JWT
• 2603.23801 (AgentRFC — Composition Safety) — theoretical grounding for DAG-level tracking

Strategic openings

• draft-ietf-wimse-arch-07 §3.3.9 — WG arch doc already names AI/ML intermediaries as workloads; ECT fills this gap
• DAWN potential new WG (draft-king-dawn-requirements-00, 2026-04-11) — agent discovery; ACT identity claims are natural payload
• NIST/NCCoE Concept Paper — US government validation of standards-first agent identity approach

---

4. Positioning Strategy

The three-sentence pitch

ACT is a two-phase JWT lifecycle — the authorization mandate transitions to a tamper-evident execution record, producing a cryptographically verifiable DAG of agent invocations. ECT is the WIMSE profile that binds ACT-style execution records to workload identity with assurance levels. Together they close the agent accountability gap that OAuth/WIMSE/SCITT leave partially open.

Differentiation matrix

Against	How ACT/ECT differ
draft-oauth-transaction-tokens-for-agents	Two-phase lifecycle (authorization → proof-of-execution), DAG (not linear actchain), works without AuthZ server
draft-emirdag-scitt-ai-agent-execution	Lifecycle layer complement, not competitor; ACT produces what AIR anchors
AIP/IBCTs (arXiv 2603.24775)	Standards-track IETF home; JWT-only (no Biscuit/Datalog complexity)
draft-helixar-hdp-agentic-delegation	JWT/JOSE-standard (vs raw JSON), DAG (vs linear), IETF path
SentinelAgent (arXiv 2604.02767)	Standards deployability (vs formal calculus)
Agentic JWT (arXiv 2509.13597)	Two-phase lifecycle; DAG vs linear chain

Non-goals (say this explicitly)

• ACT does not replace WIMSE WIT/WPT — it sits above
• ACT does not replace OAuth/Txn-Tokens — it profiles for agent semantics
• ACT does not require SCITT — but integrates cleanly with it
• ECT does not carry identity — it carries execution context

---

5. Action Plan

Phase A — Urgent technical updates (this week)

• A1: Update ECT HTTP header section — replace Wimse-Audience with wimse-aud signature metadata parameter per draft-ietf-wimse-http-signature-03
• A2: Update SCITT references in ACT — point to draft-ietf-scitt-architecture-22 (AUTH48); note RFC-to-be
• A3: Update Txn-Tokens references in ACT/ECT — lock to draft-ietf-oauth-transaction-tokens-08
• A4: Add "DAG vs linear chain" section to ACT — key technical differentiator
• A5: Add Related Work additions to ACT:
  • AIP/IBCTs (arXiv 2603.24775)
  • SentinelAgent (arXiv 2604.02767)
  • Agentic JWT (arXiv 2509.13597)
  • Txn-Tokens-for-Agents-06
  • HDP (draft-helixar-hdp-agentic-delegation)
• A6: Add Related Work additions to ECT:
  • WIMSE arch §3.3.9 (explicit)
  • Composition Safety (arXiv 2603.23801)
  • MIGT taxonomy (arXiv 2604.06148)
  • NIST/NCCoE Concept Paper
• A7: Commit all current work to git (workspace + research.ietf subrepo)

Phase B — External engagement (next 1–2 weeks)

• B1: Email Emirdag (VERIDIC) — propose SCITT-AI + ACT liaison; coordinate AIR payload format with ACT execution-phase claims
• B2: Submit ACT -01 to datatracker
• B3: Submit ECT -02 to datatracker
• B4: Post ECT intro email to wimse@ietf.org with diff doc link
• B5: Post short response to OAuth WG on Txn-Tokens-for-Agents-06 — compare actchain (linear) vs ACT pred (DAG), offer as complementary not competitive
• B6: Request 10-min slot at IETF 123 WIMSE session (July 2026)
• B7: Track DAWN WG charter formation — if charters, submit positioning comment on how ACT identity claims serve discovery

Phase C — IETF 123 preparation (May–June 2026)

• C1: Iterate ACT/ECT based on mailing list feedback
• C2: Prepare 10-min WIMSE slides (focus on: gap filled, relationship to adopted drafts, ECT's role in execution context propagation)
• C3: Prepare 5-min OAuth slot request if Txn-Tokens-for-Agents discussion opens
• C4: Reference implementation hardening: test vectors, interop with at least one other implementation

Phase D — Post-IETF 123 (August 2026+)

• D1: Based on WIMSE reception: either iterate toward WG adoption or pivot to BoF-style workshop
• D2: If SCITT-AI liaison forms: draft joint implementation report
• D3: If DAWN charters: submit ACT positioning statement

---

6. Timeline

2026-04-12  Strategy finalized (today)
2026-04-12  Phase A starts
2026-04-19  Phase A complete, ACT-01 + ECT-02 submitted
2026-04-20  Phase B starts (WIMSE ML post + Emirdag outreach)
2026-05-01  All external engagement initiated
2026-07-xx  IETF 123 (target: WIMSE 10-min slot)
2026-08-xx  Post-IETF 123 review, decide WG adoption strategy

---

7. Risk Register

Risk	Likelihood	Impact	Mitigation
WIMSE WG rejects ECT as out-of-charter	Medium	High	Cite arch §3.3.9 explicitly; frame as charter-aligned
Amazon Txn-Tokens-for-Agents gets OAuth WG adoption first	High	Medium	Differentiate at DAG/lifecycle level; position as complementary layer
SCITT-AI (Emirdag) adopted, ACT seen as redundant	Medium	High	Proactive liaison; position as lifecycle vs anchoring
DAWN charters without ACT positioning	Medium	Medium	Submit positioning statement during charter review
14+ competing drafts fragment the space	High	Medium	Focus on ACT's unique two-phase lifecycle; cite competitors as related work
Independent-submission path stalls for ACT	Medium	Medium	Keep ECT on WG-adoption path; ACT can stay independent longer if needed

---

8. Success Criteria

30-day criteria

• ACT-01 + ECT-02 on datatracker
• WIMSE mailing list engagement (≥3 replies from chairs/contributors)
• Emirdag liaison conversation started

90-day criteria (IETF 123 timing)

• 10-minute WIMSE agenda slot secured
• ≥1 independent implementation of ACT or ECT outside our refimpl
• Referenced by at least 2 other drafts

180-day criteria

• WIMSE WG adoption call for ECT (or clear path to it)
• SCITT-AI joint profile or explicit coordination
• ACT independent submission moving toward RFC Editor queue

---

9. Dependencies and Open Decisions

External dependencies

• draft-ietf-scitt-architecture → RFC (timing unknown, AUTH48 now)
• draft-ietf-oauth-transaction-tokens-08 → RFC (WG Last Call now)
• draft-ietf-wimse-http-signature → needs breaking change propagated
• WIMSE WG charter interpretation (chairs' call)

Open decisions (need user input)

• Approach to Emirdag: liaison email, co-authorship offer, or just citation?
• Publish refimpls to PyPI? (currently package names ietf-act/ietf-ect reserved but not published — no publishing without explicit user approval)
• Repo strategy: single monorepo, or split ACT/ECT into separate Git repos for separate draft homes?
• IETF 123 travel: attend in person or remote?

---

10. References

Our work

• packages/act/draft-nennemann-act-01.md
• drafts/ietf-wimse-ect/draft-nennemann-wimse-ect.md (docname -02)
• drafts/ietf-wimse-ect/DIFF-vs-txn-tokens-for-agents.md
• drafts/ietf-wimse-ect/wimse-intro-email.md

Key competing/complementary drafts

• draft-oauth-transaction-tokens-for-agents-06 (Raut/Amazon)
• draft-emirdag-scitt-ai-agent-execution-00 (VERIDIC)
• draft-helixar-hdp-agentic-delegation-00
• draft-king-dawn-requirements-00 (potential new WG)
• draft-ietf-wimse-arch-07 (cite §3.3.9)
• draft-ietf-wimse-http-signature-03 (breaking change)

Key arXiv references

• 2603.24775 — AIP / IBCTs
• 2604.02767 — SentinelAgent
• 2603.23801 — AgentRFC (Composition Safety)
• 2509.13597 — Agentic JWT
• 2604.06148 — MIGT taxonomy