Hi,
Thanks for this interesting draft. A couple of quick comments:
The existing bulk-transfer draft
[I-D.carpenter-anima-grasp-bulk] focuses mainly on one-time transfers
of large data blocks. Continuous, low-latency delivery in streaming
scenarios therefore requires further discussion.
That very old draft is really not the basis for data-intensive use cases.
However, when two agents have discovered each other via GRASP, they know each
other's address. It is rather easy to establish a direct TCP connection between
the two agents. In my original Python GRASP implementation, I implemented
support for this by adding gsend() and grecv() functions,
so that a GRASP negotiation session can switch to become a simple TCP
connection between the two agents. I did not consider TLS or QUIC but I am sure
this could be done too.
That's documented on page 17 of
https://github.com/becarpenter/graspy/blob/master/documentation/graspy.pdf .
There is a trivial example at
https://github.com/becarpenter/graspy/blob/master/ASA-examples/testclient.py
and
https://github.com/becarpenter/graspy/blob/master/ASA-examples/testserver.py
It isn't really a GRASP extension; it simply uses GRASP for discovery and
rendezvous. It assumes CBOR but I expect that CBOR will be the best way to
encode inter-agent messages anyway. Of course we could describe this in a draft
if you think it is useful.
(If you need one-to-many distribution of very large data, that is a new
problem, discussed as you say in the grasp-distribution draft.)
Problem: Each Objective must also be registered in advance. This
static model cannot meet the need for AI-ASAs to generate new
Objectives dynamically or to describe the meaning of an Objective by
themselves. It therefore limits flexible and open semantic
interaction between LLM-based agents. Gap: The current GRASP
specification relies on strictly predefined CBOR encodings and fixed
semantic mappings for Objectives
A valid definition of the value of an objective is "objective-value = any". So you can
define a generic AI objective where there is no limitation on the CBOR syntax of the value. You can
also create privately defined objectives that do not need to be registered (section 2.10.1 of RFC
8990). There is nothing to prevent dynamic generation of privately defined objectives like
"example.org:xXhiq8BHe2KH8c4F". So I don't think this is a real problem.
Regards/Ngā mihi
Brian Carpenter
On 03-Jul-26 22:43, [email protected] wrote:
Internet-Draft draft-han-anima-gap-analysis-ai-asa-00.txt is now available.
Title: Problem Statement and Gap Analysis for Autonomic Networking with
AI- powered Autonomic Service Agent
Authors: Mengyao Han
Tianyi Huang
Jing Zhao
Name: draft-han-anima-gap-analysis-ai-asa-00.txt
Pages: 6
Dates: 2026-07-03
Abstract:
This document presents a problem statement and gap analysis of the
technical challenges faced by the GeneRic Autonomic Signaling
Protocol (GRASP) [RFC8990] when it is used, within the Autonomic
Networking Infrastructure (ANI) defined by the ANIMA Working Group
[RFC8993], to support enhanced Autonomic Service Agents that
incorporate Large Language Model (LLM) capabilities, referred to in
this document as AI-ASAs.
The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-han-anima-gap-analysis-ai-asa/
There is also an HTMLized version available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-han-anima-gap-analysis-ai-asa-00
Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
