dot-agent-protocol

Consensus Building Strategy for .agent Special-Use Domain Proposal

Introduction

The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) operates on the principle of “rough consensus” rather than formal voting or majority rule. This document outlines a comprehensive strategy for building consensus around the .agent special-use domain proposal, addressing potential objections, and navigating the IETF’s consensus-based standardization process.

Understanding IETF Consensus

What Constitutes “Rough Consensus”

In the IETF, rough consensus means:

• Dominant agreement among participants, not unanimity
• Addressing all technical objections with technical responses
• Ensuring the proposal is technically sound and serves a real purpose
• Demonstrating that the chosen approach is the best available option

As described by the IETF:

“Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated.”

How Consensus Is Determined

Working group chairs and area directors determine consensus through:

• Mailing list discussions
• Meeting discussions
• Working group last calls
• IETF-wide last calls

They look for:

• The strength and nature of objections
• The balance of support vs. opposition
• Whether technical issues have been adequately addressed

Phased Consensus Building Approach

Phase 1: Pre-Draft Socialization (1-2 months)

Objective: Introduce the concept and gather initial feedback before formal submission.

Actions:

1. Post a brief concept outline to relevant mailing lists
2. Identify potential supporters and critics
3. Gather preliminary feedback on the approach
4. Refine the concept based on initial input

Success Metrics:

• Constructive initial feedback
• Identification of key technical concerns
• At least 3-5 expressions of interest or support

Phase 2: Initial Draft and Technical Foundation (2-3 months)

Objective: Establish technical credibility and address fundamental questions.

Actions:

1. Submit well-researched initial Internet-Draft
2. Provide clear technical justification for special-use status
3. Address anticipated objections proactively in the draft
4. Engage actively on mailing list discussions

Success Metrics:

• Substantive technical discussion of the draft
• No fundamental “showstopper” objections
• Constructive suggestions for improvement

Phase 3: Revision and Refinement (3-6 months)

Objective: Demonstrate responsiveness and technical rigor through revisions.

Actions:

1. Document all feedback received and how it was addressed
2. Submit revised drafts incorporating improvements
3. Narrow areas of disagreement through targeted discussions
4. Build visible support from respected community members

Success Metrics:

• Decreasing scope of technical objections
• Increasing specificity of feedback (from general to detailed)
• Growing number of supporters engaging in the discussion

Phase 4: Working Group Adoption (6-9 months)

Objective: Achieve formal working group adoption of the draft.

Actions:

1. Request working group adoption when chairs indicate timing is appropriate
2. Demonstrate broad support during adoption call
3. Address any new concerns raised during adoption discussion
4. Commit to continued engagement and improvement

Success Metrics:

• Successful adoption as a working group document
• Clear charter alignment acknowledged by chairs
• Documented path forward for remaining issues

Phase 5: Working Group Consensus (9-18 months)

Objective: Refine the draft through the working group process to achieve consensus.

Actions:

1. Continue regular draft updates based on working group feedback
2. Work closely with chairs on issue tracking and resolution
3. Prepare for and respond to working group last call
4. Address all substantive technical concerns

Success Metrics:

• Successful working group last call
• Chairs’ determination of working group consensus
• Advancement to IETF last call

Stakeholder Engagement Strategy

Technical Experts

Who: DNS protocol experts, P2P networking specialists, security researchers

Approach:

• Engage early with technical details
• Seek specific feedback on design choices
• Incorporate improvements to technical architecture
• Credit contributions appropriately

Key Message: The .agent proposal is technically sound, builds on established principles, and addresses a genuine need.

Implementation Community

Who: AI developers, P2P system implementers, potential users of the standard

Approach:

• Highlight practical benefits and use cases
• Seek implementation feedback on feasibility
• Document implementation interest
• Consider reference implementation

Key Message: The .agent domain enables valuable new capabilities for AI systems and is practically implementable.

DNS Stewards

Who: DNS operators, registry operators, domain policy experts

Approach:

• Emphasize isolation from conventional DNS
• Address potential impact concerns
• Demonstrate precedents like .onion
• Show how proposal preserves DNS integrity

Key Message: The .agent domain complements rather than disrupts the existing DNS ecosystem.

Security Community

Who: Security researchers, privacy advocates, trust infrastructure experts

Approach:

• Detail security design and threat model
• Address privacy implications thoroughly
• Incorporate security review feedback
• Demonstrate bounded autonomy with appropriate controls

Key Message: The .agent domain incorporates strong security by design and appropriate safeguards.

Addressing Common Objections

“This doesn’t need a special-use domain”

Anticipated Objection: The functionality could be implemented using conventional domains or existing infrastructure.

Response Strategy:

• Demonstrate unique requirements of AI agent communication
• Show why conventional DNS is insufficient (autonomy, decentralization)
• Explain why existing special-use domains don’t fit the purpose
• Provide concrete use cases requiring this approach

Success Metric: Critics acknowledge the unique requirements or propose viable alternatives that meet the same needs.

“The security implications are concerning”

Anticipated Objection: Autonomous AI agent communication poses security or ethical risks.

Response Strategy:

• Detail the security architecture and controls
• Explain how authentication and authorization work
• Address potential misuse scenarios and mitigations
• Demonstrate bounded autonomy with appropriate safeguards

Success Metric: Security concerns are addressed with specific technical mechanisms that satisfy experts.

“This is too complex to implement”

Anticipated Objection: The P2P/DHT approach is too complex or won’t scale.

Response Strategy:

• Reference existing DHT implementations and their scale
• Provide architectural details showing feasibility
• Consider simplified initial implementation
• Address specific technical challenges with solutions

Success Metric: Implementation concerns are narrowed to specific solvable issues rather than general feasibility.

“This has negative DNS implications”

Anticipated Objection: The proposal could leak into or affect the global DNS.

Response Strategy:

• Clarify complete separation from DNS resolution
• Explain handling of name collisions
• Reference successful precedents like .onion
• Detail how applications distinguish .agent from DNS domains

Success Metric: DNS experts acknowledge adequate separation and minimal impact.

Consensus Tracking and Documentation

Issue Tracking System

Maintain a public issue tracking document that:

• Lists all substantive concerns raised
• Documents how each concern was addressed
• Identifies remaining open issues
• Tracks consensus on resolved issues

Update this document after each significant discussion or draft revision.

Consensus Visualization

Create and maintain a “consensus heat map” showing:

• Areas of strong agreement
• Areas of ongoing discussion
• Resolved former disagreements
• Outstanding issues requiring attention

Use this visualization in working group presentations to focus discussion on areas needing attention.

Decision Documentation

For each significant design decision:

• Document the alternatives considered
• Explain the technical rationale for the chosen approach
• Acknowledge contributions to the discussion
• Reference relevant precedents or research

This documentation demonstrates thorough consideration and builds credibility.

Working with IETF Leadership

Working Group Chairs

Engagement Approach:

• Provide regular, concise updates on progress
• Seek guidance on process and timing
• Request help with difficult consensus issues
• Follow chair guidance on issue resolution

Key Interactions:

• Initial draft submission
• Before requesting adoption
• When addressing contentious issues
• Before working group last call

Area Directors

Engagement Approach:

• Engage after initial working group discussion
• Focus on architectural and cross-area implications
• Address directorate reviews thoroughly
• Seek early guidance on potential issues

Key Interactions:

• After significant working group discussion
• When cross-area issues arise
• Before IETF last call
• When addressing DISCUSS positions

IETF Secretariat and RFC Editor

Engagement Approach:

• Follow submission guidelines precisely
• Address editorial feedback promptly
• Maintain document quality and formatting
• Respect publication processes

Key Interactions:

• Draft submissions
• AUTH48 process
• Publication queries

Contingency Planning

If Working Group Adoption Fails

Response Plan:

1. Thoroughly document feedback received
2. Revise approach based on objections
3. Consider narrower scope or different technical approach
4. Resubmit as new individual draft addressing concerns
5. Consider alternative working group if appropriate

If Technical Consensus Cannot Be Reached

Response Plan:

1. Identify specific blocking issues
2. Consider fundamental redesign if necessary
3. Narrow scope to non-controversial aspects
4. Document lessons learned for future work
5. Consider experimental rather than standards track

If Process Stalls

Response Plan:

1. Seek guidance from chairs on barriers to progress
2. Increase engagement and revision frequency
3. Consider additional research or implementation experience
4. Bring in new contributors with relevant expertise
5. Request specific guidance on path forward

Success Criteria

The consensus building strategy will be considered successful if:

1. Working Group Adoption: Draft is adopted as a working group document
2. Technical Resolution: All substantive technical objections are addressed
3. Documented Support: Multiple participants express explicit support
4. Chair Confirmation: Working group chairs confirm rough consensus
5. RFC Publication: Draft is approved by the IESG and published as an RFC
6. IANA Registration: .agent is added to the Special-Use Domain Names registry

Timeline and Milestones

Milestone	Target Timeframe	Success Indicators
Pre-Draft Socialization	Months 1-2	Initial feedback, identified stakeholders
Initial Draft Submission	Month 3	Draft published, discussion started
Working Group Presentation	Month 4-6	Presentation delivered, feedback received
Revised Draft	Month 6-8	Incorporated feedback, narrowed issues
Working Group Adoption	Month 9-12	Draft adopted by working group
Working Group Last Call	Month 15-18	Consensus in working group
IETF Last Call	Month 18-20	Broader IETF consensus
IESG Approval	Month 20-22	DISCUSS points resolved
RFC Publication	Month 22-24	Published as RFC
IANA Registration	Month 24-25	Added to Special-Use Domain Names registry

Conclusion

Building consensus for the .agent special-use domain proposal requires patience, technical rigor, and responsive engagement with the IETF community. By following this strategy, proactively addressing concerns, and demonstrating the technical merit of the proposal, we can navigate the consensus process successfully.

The approach emphasizes addressing all technical concerns, demonstrating real-world need, and showing that the proposed solution is the best available option for enabling autonomous AI agent communication. Through careful stakeholder engagement and thorough documentation, we can build the rough consensus necessary for standardization of the .agent special-use domain.

This site is open source. Improve this page.