Artur,
The question hence is: should we try to claim that the "agent stuff" is best positioned in ANIMA? Would it fly?
I've been asking myself that, and I think the answer is no in the general case, because the trust model (i.e. the ACP) doesn't match the general case of agentic communication, as far as I can understand it. On the other hand, within a given instance of the ACP, or any other acceptable secure domain, we definitely want to be at the party. My first suggestion is to use GRASP as a rendezvous mechanism, so that agents can find each other - and then use the protocol of their choice to talk to each other. Agent rendezvous *outside* a limited domain such as the ACP is a much harder problem, I think. I might have a first draft of GRASP as an agent rendezvous mechanism in a few days. Regards/Ngā mihi Brian Carpenter On 09-Jul-26 18:51, Artur Hecker wrote:
Hi Michael Indeed, it was a hard sell, but maybe ANIMA was just too early? Or SDN was doing it all wrong? (in the typical deployments) I am not sure, but certainly incorporating "intelligence" in the network - as opposed to leaving it at the ends of it - would require a strong, survivable control system, as mentioned below. The question hence is: should we try to claim that the "agent stuff" is best positioned in ANIMA? Would it fly? For network management, I certainly see fit. However, most of the current agent discussions rather talk about applications (app exchanges on top of HTTPS). While it explains the difficulty, why most of it seems completely irrelevant to the IETF (DNS for agent discovery is the most relevant thing I have heard - maybe I am wrong), most of those "use cases" would hardly be ANIMA-related (would user agents use BRSKI? Pledges? ACP? Why???). So, ANIMA-wise we have a clear path towards "agentic NMS" or "intelligent orchestration" as use cases, so far so boring 😊 What else could there be? App-to-network interactions? To do what? Service discovery? Transport guarantees? Negotiations? Sovereign (source) routing? Positioning? ICN? Should we rather talk about "distributed systems" than networks? Should all agents, all my data sources, my cloud instances, etc. be registered with "my domain" and span an ACP of their own? Regards Artur -----Original Message----- From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2026 9:12 PM To: Artur Hecker <[email protected]>; Anima WG <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Anima] Re: I-D Action: draft-eckert-anima-ai4an-00.txt Artur Hecker <[email protected]> wrote: > - if we are serious about ACP/GRASP/BRSKI as foundation, we would need > to show that, even in spite of potential misjudgments by LLM or > programming errors done by it, ACP would always remain "the last > Mohican": ACP should be the last to fail, i.e. in presence of a > potentially unverified programs produced at will by the LLM/foundation > model, the ACP must act like an implementation of a protected mode in > an OS, like an OS kernel if you will, preserving the possibility to > repair/remove/terminate misbehaving programs. Such that we can have a > bunch of simple yet reliable tools on top of ACP to clean away any > nonsense introduced by LLM/foundation models, and, also very important, > to be able to isolate the effects of such programs by separating > concerns and enforcing "control app manifests" in a distributed system. +1 I totally agree, but as you said, it's been a very hard sell. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide ** My working hours and your working hours may be different. ** ** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours ** _______________________________________________ Anima 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]
