Skip to content

RFC.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
137 lines (83 loc) · 2.67 KB

RFC.md

File metadata and controls

137 lines (83 loc) · 2.67 KB

AgentNet Standards Proposal (RFC)

RFC Metadata

  • RFC ID: (leave blank; assigned by maintainers)
  • Title:
  • Author(s):
  • Date:
  • Status: Draft | Under Review | Accepted | Rejected | Withdrawn
  • ANS Version Targeted: (e.g., Core v2.x)

1. Summary

Provide a concise summary of the proposed change.

  • What is being changed?
  • Why is the change needed?
  • Is the change normative or non-normative?

This section should be understandable without reading the full document.

2. Problem Statement

Describe the problem or limitation being addressed.

  • What ambiguity, gap, or constraint exists today?
  • Who is affected?
  • Under what conditions does the issue arise?

Reference specific ANS sections where applicable.

3. Proposed Change

Describe the proposed solution in detail.

  • New definitions, rules, or clarifications
  • Modified behavior or constraints
  • New optional or extensible mechanisms

Clearly distinguish:

  • Normative requirements
  • Non-normative guidance or examples

4. Normative Language (If Applicable)

If this proposal introduces or modifies normative behavior, include candidate language using RFC-style terms:

  • MUST / SHALL
  • SHOULD
  • MAY
  • MUST NOT / SHALL NOT

Draft language should be precise and unambiguous.

5. Backward Compatibility

Analyze compatibility impact:

  • Is this change backward compatible?
  • If not, why is the break justified?
  • Are migration or coexistence paths available?

Backward compatibility is strongly preferred.

6. Interoperability Impact

Explain how the proposal affects:

  • Multiple independent implementations
  • Federation across Nodes, Resolvers, and Registrars
  • Cross-version interaction

Proposals that reduce interoperability must be clearly justified.

7. Alternatives Considered

List reasonable alternatives and explain why they were not chosen.

This demonstrates due diligence and strengthens review.

8. Security, Trust, and Provenance Considerations

Describe any implications for:

  • Trust validation
  • Provenance signaling
  • Misuse or abuse scenarios
  • Attack surface expansion or reduction

If none, explicitly state so.

9. Implementation Considerations (Non-Normative)

Optional section for:

  • Reference implementation notes
  • Validation or testing considerations
  • Performance or operational observations

This section MUST NOT introduce requirements.

10. Open Questions

List unresolved questions or areas needing further discussion.

11. Conclusion

Summarize the expected benefit to the AgentNet ecosystem and why this change improves the standard.

Appendix (Optional)

  • Diagrams
  • Examples
  • Extended discussion