dot-agent-protocol

Working Group Engagement Strategy for .agent Special-Use Domain Proposal

Executive Summary

This document outlines a comprehensive strategy for engaging with IETF working groups to advance the .agent special-use domain proposal. Effective working group engagement is critical to building consensus, addressing technical concerns, and ultimately achieving standardization. This strategy focuses on the DNS Operations (dnsop) working group as the primary venue, with secondary engagement in related working groups.

Primary Working Group: DNS Operations (dnsop)

Relevance to Proposal

The DNS Operations (dnsop) working group is the primary venue for special-use domain proposals, as evidenced by previous successful special-use domain standardizations like .onion (RFC 7686). This working group focuses on:

• DNS protocol operations and deployment considerations
• Special-use domain name standardization
• DNS security and operational practices

Engagement Timeline

Phase	Timeframe	Actions
Pre-submission	1-2 months	Research, monitor discussions, identify key participants
Initial contact	Week 1	Introductory email to mailing list with concept
Draft submission	Week 2	Submit Internet-Draft, announce on list
Discussion period	Weeks 3-12	Active participation in mailing list discussions
Meeting presentation	Next IETF meeting	Present draft during working group session
Revision period	1-3 months	Incorporate feedback, submit revised draft
Working group adoption	3-6 months	Request adoption as working group document
Working group process	6-12 months	Continue revisions through working group process

Key Participants to Engage

1. Working Group Chairs
   • Current chairs listed at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/chairs/
   • Engage early with brief, clear explanation of proposal
   • Seek guidance on working group fit and process
2. Area Directors
   • Operations and Management Area Directors
   • Engage after initial working group discussion
   • Focus on broader Internet architecture implications
3. Active Contributors
   • Identify from recent working group drafts and mailing list
   • Engage individually with those who have relevant expertise
   • Seek early feedback on technical approach
4. Previous Special-Use Domain Authors
   • Authors of RFC 7686 (.onion) and similar documents
   • Seek advice on navigating the process
   • Learn from their experience with similar proposals

Communication Approach

1. Initial Announcement Email
   • Subject: “Proposed Internet-Draft: The .agent Special-Use Domain Name”
   • Brief (2-3 paragraph) explanation of purpose and technical approach
   • Clear statement of why this requires a special-use domain
   • Request for initial feedback on concept before detailed draft
2. Draft Announcement Email
   • Subject: “Internet-Draft: draft-agent-special-use-domain-00”
   • Summary of key technical points (1-2 paragraphs)
   • Specific questions for the working group to consider
   • Request for feedback on specific aspects of the design
3. Meeting Presentation
   • 5-7 slides maximum
   • Focus on technical justification and architecture
   • Address anticipated concerns proactively
   • Clear next steps and request for adoption consideration
4. Response Strategy
   • Respond to all substantive comments within 48 hours
   • Acknowledge valid concerns and incorporate feedback
   • Document all feedback and how it was addressed
   • Maintain professional, technical focus in all communications

Secondary Working Groups

Security Dispatch (secdispatch)

Relevance: Security aspects of AI agent communication

Engagement Approach:

• Monitor mailing list for relevant discussions
• Submit brief overview of security aspects for consideration
• Request guidance on security considerations section
• Consider presenting if directed by chairs

Applications and Real-Time Area (art)

Relevance: Application protocol aspects of AI agent communication

Engagement Approach:

• Inform area directors of the proposal
• Seek input on application-layer considerations
• Consider joint sessions if there is interest
• Incorporate feedback on application protocol aspects

Addressing Common Concerns

Based on previous special-use domain proposals, we anticipate these concerns and will proactively address them:

1. Technical Necessity

Anticipated Concern: Why can’t this use a conventional domain or existing special-use domain?

Response Strategy:

• Demonstrate unique requirements of AI agent communication
• Explain why P2P/DHT resolution is necessary
• Show why existing domains are insufficient
• Provide concrete use cases requiring this approach

2. Security Implications

Anticipated Concern: What are the security risks of autonomous AI agent communication?

Response Strategy:

• Detail cryptographic authentication mechanisms
• Explain privacy protections in the design
• Address potential for misuse and mitigations
• Demonstrate bounded autonomy with appropriate controls

3. DNS Impact

Anticipated Concern: How does this affect the global DNS?

Response Strategy:

• Clarify that .agent is not resolved via DNS
• Explain isolation from DNS infrastructure
• Address potential leakage into DNS
• Reference precedents like .onion that successfully coexist

4. Implementation Complexity

Anticipated Concern: Is the proposed P2P/DHT approach implementable?

Response Strategy:

• Reference existing DHT implementations
• Provide high-level implementation architecture
• Consider proof-of-concept demonstration
• Address scalability and performance considerations

Building Consensus

Tracking Support and Opposition

Maintain a document tracking:

• Supportive comments and contributors
• Concerns raised and how addressed
• Outstanding issues requiring resolution
• Changes made in response to feedback

Consensus Indicators

Look for these signs of growing consensus:

• Decreasing volume of fundamental objections
• Increasing refinement of specific details
• Working group chair acknowledgment of progress
• Contributors offering to help improve the draft

Milestone Targets

1. Initial Feedback: 5+ substantive responses to initial announcement
2. Draft Feedback: 10+ detailed comments on first draft
3. Meeting Interest: Questions and discussion during presentation
4. Revision Support: Positive acknowledgment of revisions addressing concerns
5. Adoption Support: 3+ explicit statements of support for working group adoption
6. Working Group Milestone: Inclusion in working group milestones

Meeting Participation Strategy

Before the Meeting

1. Request Agenda Time:
   • Contact chairs 3-4 weeks before meeting
   • Provide clear description of presentation goals
   • Submit slides 1 week in advance
2. Prepare Materials:
   • Create concise, technical slides
   • Prepare for common questions
   • Have supporting data ready
3. Socialize the Proposal:
   • Contact key participants individually
   • Address major concerns before the meeting
   • Build preliminary support

During the Meeting

1. Presentation Approach:
   • Focus on technical aspects, not marketing
   • Acknowledge known issues and plans to address
   • Be explicit about what feedback is sought
2. Discussion Management:
   • Note all questions and comments
   • Identify speakers for follow-up
   • Stay focused on technical merits
3. Consensus Gauging:
   • Listen for chair’s summary of discussion
   • Note areas of agreement and disagreement
   • Identify action items clearly

After the Meeting

1. Follow-up Email:
   • Send summary to mailing list within 48 hours
   • Address unanswered questions
   • Outline next steps based on feedback
2. Individual Engagement:
   • Contact those who raised concerns
   • Work through technical issues offline
   • Report resolution back to the list
3. Revision Planning:
   • Create timeline for addressing feedback
   • Announce planned revision date
   • Seek volunteers for review before submission

Contingency Planning

If Working Group Adoption Is Delayed

1. Continue as Individual Submission:
   • Maintain regular draft updates
   • Address all feedback comprehensively
   • Build broader community support
2. Consider Alternative Approaches:
   • Evaluate if scope can be adjusted
   • Consider if another working group might be appropriate
   • Assess if the proposal can be split into smaller pieces
3. Build Implementation Experience:
   • Develop reference implementation
   • Document real-world use cases
   • Demonstrate practical value

If Technical Objections Are Significant

1. Fundamental Redesign:
   • Be willing to reconsider core aspects
   • Collaborate with critics on alternatives
   • Restart process with revised approach
2. Narrow Scope:
   • Focus on most essential aspects
   • Defer controversial elements to future work
   • Seek minimal viable standard
3. Research and Documentation:
   • Conduct additional research to address concerns
   • Document alternatives considered
   • Provide data supporting design decisions

Success Metrics

The engagement strategy will be considered successful if:

1. Working Group Adoption: Draft is adopted as a working group document within 6-9 months
2. Technical Consensus: Major technical objections are resolved or accommodated
3. Timeline Progress: Draft advances through IETF process without stalling
4. Community Support: Multiple implementers express interest in the standard
5. Publication Path: Clear path to RFC publication is established

Conclusion

Effective working group engagement is critical to the success of the .agent special-use domain proposal. By following this strategy, proactively addressing concerns, and building relationships within the IETF community, we can navigate the standardization process successfully. The approach emphasizes technical merit, collaborative problem-solving, and respect for IETF processes and norms.

This strategy should be reviewed and updated regularly based on actual engagement experiences and feedback received.

This site is open source. Improve this page.