It seems like the right venue for this proposal is probably the DAWN [1] mailing list, which is planning a BoF for IETF 126. The topic is AI agent identity and discovery, with a focus on DNS records.
--Ben [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/dawn/about/ On Sun, Jun 14, 2026 at 4:42 PM Mark E. Jeftovic <[email protected]> wrote: > > There was an earlier draft submission from me on x402 service discovery - > which I've circulated to some people in the x402 community (x402scan adopted > it in their discovery spec) but I allowed that to expire because after that I > started working > > > There was an earlier draft submission from me on x402 service discovery - > which I've circulated to some people in the x402 community (x402scan adopted > it in their discovery spec) but I allowed that to expire because after that I > started working on Intelligence-Over-DNS (IoDNS) which would have subsumed it. > > That's what got the conversation going with Elliot - Groundmark has a > similarly generalized scope at a different place in the chain. > > Said differently, it became apparent to me that a draft spec for x402 > specifically was probably too narrow, as there will likely be similar > mechanisms proposed that fulfill a similar function. > > I never did submit IoDNS as a draft, but it's on the my github for > discussion's sake > > https://github.com/markjr/Intelligence-over-DNS (I also note that the > reference URL is also incorrectly pointing at the easyDNS github in the spec, > which we'll also fix in the next revision). > > - mark > > On 2026-06-14 2:38 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > > Hi Mark, > At 06:40 AM 14-06-2026, Mark E. Jeftovic wrote: > > No, our intent is not fixed on publishing through the Independent Submission > Stream. We submitted the current -00 as individual Internet-Drafts, and are > bringing the DNS-layer design to DNSOP specifically to get WG review and > guidance on the appropriate path. > > If the WG believes the work belongs in DNSOP, we would be happy to pursue > that path, including WG adoption if there is interest and consensus. If the > WG thinks another path is more appropriate, we would welcome that guidance as > well. > > The "Independent Submission" label in the current draft was an artifact of > earlier authoring/template work and should be treated as a header mistake. We > can correct it in the next revision. > > > Thanks for the above information. > > According to Section 1 of draft-noss-jeftovic-groundmark-core-00, the > proposal is related to X402. There are other proposals related to X402. A > x402 Foundation is expected to be established. My guess is that someone > would have to talk to the appropriate contact at that end to find out what to > do about those proposals. > > The DNS angle is quite straight-forward given that there is already 14 "TXT" > registrations in the "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" > registry (RFC 8552). If I am not mistaken, the requests are sent through > IANA lately. > > The DNSOP question could be about the TTL of "_agentclaim" records (Section > 4.2 of the draft). > > Section 7 of the draft explains why DNSSEC validation is required. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > -- > Mark E. Jeftovic <[email protected]> > Co-founder & CEO easyDNS Technologies Inc. > +1-(416)-535-8672 ext 225 > > "Never expect a thing you do not want, > and never desire a thing you do not expect." > -- Bob Proctor > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
