Suggested edits to the charter

[HeshamGmoussa]

Few Editorial changes
Added a suggestion to open the door to considering other potential candidate solutions besides DNS Included DNS-based WGs in the list of the WGs to coordinate with

[AdrianFarrel]

I am not clear what "management of discovery information" means. It is probably not something the discovery protocol is responsible for, and it seems to open the door to "registration" and other important but out-of-scope functions

[HeshamGmoussa]

hmmm, I am thinking that organizations can publish their discovery information and also manage them as in if they want to update the published information, delete them, control who can access the information, etc. Maybe manage is not the right term. What I was aiming for is to say that "not only publish". If you think that makes sense, any alternative suggestions on how to reflect that?

[AdrianFarrel]

OK. I agree this is an important piece of the ecosystem. Like the initial "publication" / "registration" making updates to or withdrawing this information is going to be a necessary component of the whole system.

But, it overly broadens the scope of DAWN to work on the protocol elements of this function. Indeed, compare with how information gets into the DNS for "normal" lookups.

I think that this is best handled by a (new?) I-D that describes the whole system from publication, through discovery and capabilities exchange, and into selection of agents. At the moment, I don't know where that I-D lives, but I think it would be of interest to people working in DAWN and AIProto

[AdrianFarrel]

I think there are several points here:

• The IETF has a discovery protocol (DNS) and should take that as the starting point
• If there are other existing IETF protocols that should be considered, we should call them out explicitly
• The IETF is typically not good at considering protocols made outside the IETF unless they are brought in by proponents, and even then it is unclear how the process of "fixing" those protocols would be done.

[HeshamGmoussa]

I see your point, yet not sure if the text we proposed contradicts what you have highlighted. I agree that the text could be more explicit about DNS, but the point is that I wanted to draw attention to the possibility of considering other solutions. As for external work outside IETF, I agree with you.

hmmm, Would the following be more appropriate? say something like

"The WG will consider existing IETF solutions, such as DNS and its extensions including DNSSEC, DNS-SD, DoH, DoT, etc as the starting point upon which discovery protocols would be built. The group may also consider solutions proposed under other organizations (e.g., Linux foundation) that address DAWN problem space to draw inspiration."

[AdrianFarrel]

I think that you and I are not going to agree on this point. It is probably worth taking to the list for discussion. It's one of my two "Big Questions" (should we start with DNS? should we discover more than AI agents?). See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dawn/E9euuIr7ZmSk00cudDcLFT-coL4/

The opinion of the chairs and AD is that the WG should start by attempting to use DNS plus extensions, but be aware that it might not do the job. The current text, I think says that. And we didn't want to immediately open the doors for discussion of other options until we find out that DNS doesn't do the job.

[AdrianFarrel]

It's a good point, but I think we have to call them out by name.

[HeshamGmoussa]

sure, I think these are the active ones: DNSSD, DNSOP, ADD, DELEG. I can add them to the PR no problem.

[arashmid]

I am actually confused now... If we wanted to start by DNS only, why we would even need to establish another working group? I guess we won't be needing the PS draft anymore either!?