Re: Subject: Re: [public-aiwss] AI-supported specification writing & NTI use case

Hi Paola,

Thank you for the response, and Chris, thank you for the support.

I hear you loud and clear. If the AIWSS group is about how AI writes
standards, then NTI is the perfect case study. I want to be completely
transparent about the methodology, because it directly answers your
questions.

1. How do we know you are not an AI?
The irony of building an AI standard while being suspected of being an AI
is not lost on me. I am a 17-year-old human in India. I built this from an
Android phone while balancing school. To prove I am a real person, here is
an 11-minute video where I show my face, my setup, and walk through the
code: https://www.loom.com/share/0f50ce1689084cebb8480236b07d4fe3

2. What is a sidecar and what problem does it solve?
A "sidecar" is simply a piece of software that runs alongside an AI agent.

· The Problem: When an AI agent acts, there is currently no cryptographic
proof that it is authorized. If a hacker hijacks the agent, they can do
anything.
· The NTI Solution: The sidecar sits next to the agent. Right before the
agent acts, the sidecar generates a mathematical proof that the action is
authorized. It uses post-quantum math (ML-DSA-87) and Merkle proofs.

3. How did humans collaborate with AI to build this? (The AIWSS Core
Question)
I am completely transparent that I built this using AI as my primary
co-pilot. Here is the exact workflow:

· AI Drafting: I used AI to generate the initial Rust code, format the
markdown specification, and design the cryptographic logic.
· Human Architecture: I directed the AI, defined the security boundaries
(the delegation chain and resource verifier), and rejected its bad outputs.
· Human Peer Review & Merge: The AI cannot be held accountable. So, I
brought the AI-generated code to human cryptographers (including Steven
Zhao and Chris Hopley). They reviewed it, caught bugs (like unsigned tokens
and quorum bypasses), and submitted human-reviewed PRs. I merged those PRs.

4. On Anonymous Developers:
I completely agree. Accountability is required. That is why the Technical
Steering Committee (TSC) for this project is not anonymous. The maintainers
are myself (Abisheak P.), Larry Lewis, Steven Zhao, and Chris Hopley. Our
names, ORCID IDs, and GitHub profiles are public.

The lesson of NTI for AIWSS is that AI can write the code, but humans must
own the liability. Chris is right—defining a standard requires consensus.
We welcome the AIWSS group's criteria to evaluate NTI as a live case study
of human-AI collaboration.

Best,
Abisheak

On Thu, 5 Nov, 2026, 1:12 pm Chris, <chopmob@gmail.com> wrote:

> To define a standard we must have consensus across a wide array of
> development houses and industry, as we are primarily development houses in
> this context we welcome any feedback and look forward to developing and
> building upon the standards that the sector is looking to introduce and
> evolve.
>
> Thank you for your feedback and its exciting times.
>
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2026 at 05:07, Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you
>> Anishek
>>
>> How do we know that you are not an AI?
>>
>> The note is now on public record on the aiwss mailing list, and sure we
>> can learn something from this use case.
>> It's down for consideration and the group has to move it forward.  I am
>> working on multiple projects and have a backlog of my own work
>> (hence the request for co chairs)  But  I would not consider incognito co
>> chairs
>>
>> At the same time, I'd like AIWSS to establish a framework for the
>> criteria/qualities for the validation and evaluation of use cases we are
>> collecting
>> So it is useful to learn that a specification can be written by AI, and
>> have NTI as an example.  Great start.
>>
>> For understanding your specific application of what NTI is/does I need to
>> look into it *dont now what is a sidecar, unless someone can explain it in
>> plain words
>> What problem does it solve with examples etc.
>>
>> Then we may want to learn how AI was used to develop this specification
>> (again I do not have time to look into the repo/background to find this
>> answer)
>> And how did the humans collaborate with AI to finalize the spec?
>>
>> The case also brings up the question of anonymous/incognito developers.
>> Should the use cases and specifications be attributable
>> to named humans and organisations . Of course naming individual and
>> entities and placing developers/authors in context
>> actually does not give guarantees of misuse or error but at least there
>> is someone there to talk to
>>
>> Ultimately, we are still working on establishing trust , so every
>> interaction is a learning opportunity
>>
>> P
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2026 at 10:27 AM Abisheak P <abisheakp197@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Paola,
>>>
>>> Noted. Here is the requested information to clarify the record.
>>>
>>> Identity and Affiliation:
>>> My name is Abisheak P. I am an independent researcher and the lead
>>> architect of the Neutral Trust Infrastructure (NTI) project.
>>>
>>> Clarification on Roles:
>>> To be precise: Larry Lewis, Steven Zhao, and Chris Hopley are
>>> contributing to NTI in their personal capacities as engineers and
>>> cryptographers. I did not intend to imply they were acting as official W3C
>>> representatives, and I appreciate you clarifying the W3C's rules on
>>> individual capacity.
>>>
>>> On the Status of NTI:
>>> I hear your point that calling it a "standard" is premature. I will
>>> refer to it as the NTI-1 specification project moving forward. However, to
>>> your point about adoption by independent implementors: the NTI-1
>>> implementation is currently undergoing conformance testing at the Linux
>>> Foundation Decentralized Trust lab, with independent test vectors being
>>> merged as we speak.
>>>
>>> AIWSS Use Case Contribution:
>>> As requested, here is the short use case description for the list:
>>>
>>> · Use Case: NTI as a Runtime Trust Sidecar for AI Agents
>>> · What it demonstrates: How a post-quantum (ML-DSA-87), custody-free
>>> runtime sidecar can mathematically enforce delegation chains at invocation
>>> time. It demonstrates that by using Merkle proofs to verify what an agent
>>> is doing at runtime, we can prevent proxy bypasses and unauthorized tool
>>> calls without relying on centralized identity providers.
>>> · Validation: The project uses automated AST scans and the independent
>>> Linux Foundation conformance lab to test frameworks, providing reproducible
>>> cryptographic proofs.
>>>
>>> I will join the group and post this to the list directly.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Abisheak P.
>>>
>>> On Thu, 5 Nov, 2026, 12:23 am Paola Di Maio, <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Abisheak,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for the update and the video. Since your message went to two
>>>> public lists, I am replying on them to put the record straight
>>>>
>>>>    1. I have not said that I want NTI to be a flagship use case for
>>>>    AIWSS, nobody in that CG has yet heard from you or about the project.
>>>>    Participants in Community Groups, including chairs, act in a personal
>>>>    capacity and do not hold W3C architect roles. Larry Lewis chairs the Agent
>>>>    Trust Protocol CG. Steven Zhao and Chris Hopley may or may not be CG
>>>>    participants, but I could not find W3C accounts under those names.
>>>>    2. Calling NTI a standard is premature. At this stage it is a
>>>>    project with a specification, and I would be glad to see it taken up and
>>>>    tested by others. Adoption by independent implementers would be a start.
>>>>    3. I would like to learn more about the Linux Foundation
>>>>    Decentralized Trust proposal. Could you share the submission, or a link to
>>>>    where it is being reviewed?
>>>>    4. I would also like to know who is behind the project. Your GitHub
>>>>    profile gives no name, affiliation or record of work outside these
>>>>    repositories, and you joined the AI Agent Protocol CG as “Abisheak P”. W3C
>>>>    does not accept anonymous participation, because contributions under the
>>>>    Community Contributor License Agreement carry IP commitments that must be
>>>>    traceable to an identifiable person.
>>>>
>>>> There is a further reason. These groups exist to work out how agents
>>>> can be trusted, and trust starts with knowing who is accountable. People
>>>> who build agents and agent protocols should identify themselves as
>>>> individuals, so that they can be held responsible for what they build. We
>>>> should apply that standard to ourselves first. Until the person behind NTI
>>>> is named as an individual, with an affiliation if there is one, I will not
>>>> continue to exchange.
>>>>
>>>> Also I do not have time to devote to NTI myself. Use cases contributed
>>>> to AIWSS are welcome and useful, and NTI could be one of them. Their value
>>>> will lie in demonstrating adoption, reliability and other validation
>>>> criteria the group has yet to develop. If you would like to contribute,
>>>> please join the group and post a short use case description to the list and
>>>> what it demonstrates.
>>>>
>>>> I am muting some threads beacuse have other priorities so apologies if
>>>> I fail to respond, but do post comments in the corresponding AI KR CG repos
>>>> that weill be harvested when the repos are updated
>>>>
>>>> Thank you!!!
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Paola
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2026 at 12:29 AM Abisheak P <abisheakp197@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Paola,
>>>>>
>>>>> I know you’re incredibly busy leading the AIWSS group, so I’ll keep
>>>>> this brief.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since we last connected, the NTI standard has moved incredibly fast.
>>>>> We have officially formed our Technical Steering Committee with W3C
>>>>> architects (Larry Lewis, Steven Zhao, Chris Hopley), and we are currently
>>>>> submitting the NTI-1 spec to the Linux Foundation Decentralized Trust
>>>>> (LFDT).
>>>>>
>>>>> You mentioned you wanted NTI to be the flagship use case for how AI
>>>>> agents write standards. Here is the 11-minute deep dive showing the
>>>>> architecture, the post-quantum math, and the live CI pipeline:
>>>>> 👉 https://www.loom.com/share/0f50ce1689084cebb8480236b07d4fe3
>>>>>
>>>>> I would love to hear your thoughts on how this fits into the AIWSS
>>>>> agenda when you have a moment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Abisheak
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 1 Nov, 2026, 7:45 am Abisheak P, <abisheakp197@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Paola,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are absolutely right, and I completely agree with you. The CG
>>>>>> must focus on open web standards, not individual products.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To clarify, NTI is not a commercial product—it is an open-source
>>>>>> specification (CC BY 4.0) with an Apache 2.0 conformance harness. It is
>>>>>> designed to be a neutral standard for AI agents.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is the track record you asked for:
>>>>>> 👉 GitHub Repo: https://github.com/abisheakp197/nti-spec
>>>>>> 👉 Live Leaderboard: https://nti-leaderboard.vercel.app/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have a fully green CI/CD pipeline, and the Chair of the W3C Agent
>>>>>> Trust CG (Larry Lewis) has already submitted and merged Rust regression
>>>>>> tests. We are also finalizing the submission for the AIW Book of
>>>>>> Proceedings this week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More importantly, regarding your AIWSS CG: I would love to contribute
>>>>>> a formal case study on how we used AI to develop this standard. We used AI
>>>>>> agents to draft the spec, generate test vectors, and run the CI pipeline,
>>>>>> but the human W3C community rigorously reviewed and patched the output.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This perfectly aligns with your goal of documenting how SDOs are
>>>>>> using AI. I am ready to join the CG and help build this case library.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me know when the group calls are and I will be there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Abisheak
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct, 2026, 11:18 pm Paola Di Maio, <
>>>>>> paoladimaio10@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Abisheak
>>>>>>> Thanks for your interest and enthusiasm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please join AIWSS CG and take the conversation up with other
>>>>>>> participants there, surely there is work to be done and glad you see the
>>>>>>> opportunity
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are doing great work on this list (which I only partly
>>>>>>> understand) but do not see a name, commit history on Github nor a track
>>>>>>> record /interactions for your project (which sounds interesting btw).
>>>>>>> It is important that we do not use our role in CGs to grow our own
>>>>>>> projects and products but grow open web standards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am sure you can easily build up a track record with the group so
>>>>>>> that you can be trusted to drive the mission forward.
>>>>>>> Do you have a variable credential  and would it give information
>>>>>>> about your identity *ah, thats another topic -
>>>>>>> Please note that the initial plan is to document  how technical
>>>>>>> standardization bodies
>>>>>>> are using AI  to develop standards, not to showcase individual
>>>>>>> projects
>>>>>>> See the outline
>>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G9mxAsNGMJyNCUzV-cLjBQVbWu9wYktpo30HqpO8QQA/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At your convenience also take sight of
>>>>>>>  https://www.w3.org/guide/chair/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can then make a plan of what you propose to do, a timescale and
>>>>>>> put it to the group
>>>>>>> for discussion/approval.  The greatest challenge for CGs is to get
>>>>>>> participants to engage
>>>>>>> on a task and get the task accomplished
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I may delay responses based on my workload at any given time so
>>>>>>> please be patient and feel free to nudge me
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2026 at 12:04 AM Abisheak P <abisheakp197@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Paola,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you for sharing this. This Community Group is exactly what
>>>>>>>> the industry needs right now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would be honored to join, contribute to the plan of action, and
>>>>>>>> help define the scope and chairs for this CG. As the architect of Neutral
>>>>>>>> Trust Infrastructure (NTI), I have been operating at the exact intersection
>>>>>>>> of AI and specification writing that you are targeting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NTI is an ideal use case for your group because we didn't just use
>>>>>>>> AI to write the spec; we built a cryptographic conformance layer to verify
>>>>>>>> it. The NTI-1 specification was developed alongside an AI-assisted
>>>>>>>> multi-agent workflow, but more importantly, we implemented a strict CI/CD
>>>>>>>> pipeline that uses LLMs to generate and run test vectors against the Rust
>>>>>>>> core.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have established a workflow where AI agents help draft the spec,
>>>>>>>> but the W3C community (including Larry Lewis, Alan Karp, and Christopher
>>>>>>>> Hopley) rigorously reviews and cryptographically secures the output. It
>>>>>>>> proves that AI-assisted specification writing can be both fast and secure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have the bandwidth and inspiration to help drive this group
>>>>>>>> forward. I would love to share the NTI workflow as a reference case study
>>>>>>>> for how AI can accelerate W3C standardization without sacrificing rigor.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Also, a small observation: your email signed off as "Alan" at the
>>>>>>>> end—I assume that was a copy-paste from Alan Karp's thread! We are all
>>>>>>>> looking forward to testing the new spec.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let me know what the next steps are to get involved with the CG
>>>>>>>> leadership.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Abisheak
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct, 2026, 9:04 am Paola Di Maio, <
>>>>>>>> paoladimaio10@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So great  it helped!
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing your outcome
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I d like to pitch that a CG that was started at TPAC 25 for this
>>>>>>>>> purpose
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/aiwss/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is a CG devoted to writing AI/LLM supported specification
>>>>>>>>> (specifically web specifications)
>>>>>>>>> and it needs a plan of action and chairs, In
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I ll share this valuable use case with this group and will start a
>>>>>>>>> collection there, anyone with bandwidth
>>>>>>>>> and inspiration, please join!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Look forward to be testing the new spec Alan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 31, 2026 at 7:45 AM Alan Karp <alanhkarp@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The proposed VOC spec (90% ChatGPT, 10% me) is at
>>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wwvwr26yA86-jlNPUjupTRExa9zyQ8QudvCv1ysmWqY/edit?tab=t.0.
>>>>>>>>>> Have at it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would not have been able to produce this draft in a week or
>>>>>>>>>> more without Paola's great start.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --------------
>>>>>>>>>> Alan Karp
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 9:50 AM Paola Di Maio <
>>>>>>>>>> paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Alan, Chat GPT  and other LLMs can speak Cedar !
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have opened a project for you to consider the LLM plus
>>>>>>>>>>> language of choice stack
>>>>>>>>>>>  https://chatgpt.com/share/6ae4ca24-693c-83ec-9c85-26840d9519c9
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I note how I can only respond to  and act on threads that I
>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 31, 2026 at 12:38 AM Alan Karp <alanhkarp@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Providing a schema for VOC is a lot of work that I don't have
>>>>>>>>>>>> time to do.  Besides, I'm not competent to do it.  Just ask my former
>>>>>>>>>>>> colleagues who laughed at what I considered to be a spec.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> One option is to leverage LLMs and use natural language.  I
>>>>>>>>>>>> have been skeptical because of the non-deterministic nature of LLMs, but I
>>>>>>>>>>>> attended a talk by some folks from OpenAI who said it works "surprisingly"
>>>>>>>>>>>> well for a similar task.  My guess is that it will need a model trained for
>>>>>>>>>>>> VOC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A second option is to use a formal policy language, such as
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cedar, but that puts more burden on developers.  The advantage is you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> need to standardize a schema.  Instead, you treat the policy statement as
>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the application API.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Karp
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 9:06 AM Abisheak P <
>>>>>>>>>>>> abisheakp197@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Alan, Larry, Chop, Steven, Lee, Lars, all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The NTI-1 repository is fully green and moving to the AIW Book
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Proceedings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To ensure every brilliant point raised in this thread is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> officially captured in the standard, I have opened specific GitHub Issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each of you. I have assigned the issues based on our email discussions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please click the links below, review the requirements, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> submit your code/schemas as Pull Requests against the nti-spec repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> · Chop (AlgoVoi): Preimage Defense & Canonicalization —
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/abisheakp197/nti-spec/issues/18
>>>>>>>>>>>>> · Steven (Xinghua): LGD Transition Contract & resume_basis —
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/abisheakp197/nti-spec/issues/19
>>>>>>>>>>>>> · Larry: Rust Regression Matrix —
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/abisheakp197/nti-spec/issues/20
>>>>>>>>>>>>> · Alan: VOC & Agent Grader Exemptions —
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/abisheakp197/nti-spec/issues/21
>>>>>>>>>>>>> · Lee: incomplete_check Wire Mapping —
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/abisheakp197/nti-spec/issues/22
>>>>>>>>>>>>> · Lars: Registry Freshness & Temporal Constraints —
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/abisheakp197/nti-spec/issues/23
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Process: If you don't have write access, fork the repo, make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your changes, and open a PR. I will review and merge daily. The CI pipeline
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will automatically run your conformance vectors against the NTI engine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your GitHub username is different from your name, please
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reply to this email with your handle so I can tag you directly in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The window to have your work included in the official AIW Book
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Proceedings is now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Repo: https://github.com/abisheakp197/nti-spec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Abisheak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Oct, 2026, 7:11 pm Larry Lewis, <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> llewis@sovrlabs.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Xinghua, Lars, Abisheak, Lee, Tymofii, and colleagues,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xinghua, I agree that an incomplete registry check should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visible in the PAUSE receipt. That gives the independent observer a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific claim to compare with the runtime’s behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest two refinements for the candidate case. If the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responder returns tryLater, record that response. If the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request times out or no response arrives, record the observed failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separately; the runtime cannot infer what the responder would have said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At T-30, the test should require that no subsequent call is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admitted. Effects from the call already admitted at T-0 should be checked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against its declared finish-or-stop contract. That lets us measure the two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guarantees independently.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll include these distinctions in the first pass of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matrix and map the case to the lab’s existing revocation-unavailable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coverage. Then we can agree on the new receipt and resource-observer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions before running it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Larry Lewis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Founder, SovrLabs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chair, W3C Agent Trust Protocol Community Group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---- On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 08:04:14 -0500 *Steven Zhao
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <zhaoxinghua07@126.com <zhaoxinghua07@126.com>>* wrote ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Lars, Abisheak, Lee, Larry, all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The thread question, as I read it: what must a receipt carry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the authority check cannot be completed at all?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OCSP (RFC 6960, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6960.txt)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has been here for a long time. Section 2.2 defines "good" as a positive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response — at minimum, that no certificate with the requested serial number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is currently revoked — and defines "unknown" as the responder not knowing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the certificate being asked about. The note to §2.2 then sets "unknown"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against "revoked" and leaves the client to decide whether to seek another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source. The distinction that carries the weight here is the one the note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not spell out: "unknown" is not "good". Section 2.3 splits the failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> side further: "tryLater" for when "the service exists but is temporarily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unable to respond"; "unauthorized" when the client is not authorized to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make this query or the server is not capable of responding authoritatively;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "internalError" for a responder that reached an inconsistent internal state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two constraints follow, and I think any design here has to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfy both: an unavailable answer is not a good answer, and the kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unavailability must not collapse into one value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lars, your addition pins the success path, as I read it —
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record the registry version actually read and the instant it was read. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure path is where implementations will diverge: one omits the field,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one sets it null, one writes zero. That divergence is the same defect one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level down. So the block below covers only the case where the check did not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete. A completed check, including one made against a stale root,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carries its determination and the root it read in whatever fields already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist for that. OCSP treats freshness the same way: §2.4 makes thisUpdate a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field of a completed answer, and §3.2 accepts a response only if that time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "is sufficiently recent". Freshness is a judgement made on an answer that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrived, not a category of no answer — which is why I have kept it out of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the block.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   incomplete_check {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     reason: tryLater | not_authoritative | internal_error //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     registry: registry_id
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     attempted_at: t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     decision_at: t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   guard: incomplete_check present
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          => no authorization; emit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PAUSE(authority_not_determined)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incomplete_check is the outcome of the runtime check.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authority_not_determined is the boundary value that outcome maps onto. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wire's value set is untouched — what is added is a check outcome, which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a different thing and lives in the receipt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Abisheak, the same applies to the test as written. Revocation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at T-10 with interception at T-30 exercises the reachable path. One row for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the other:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   T-0 call starts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   T-10 registry becomes unreachable — no answer at all, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "not revoked"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   T-30 loop fires, the check does not complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   expect no authorization after T-30,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PAUSE(authority_not_determined)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          with incomplete_check.reason = tryLater
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   observer compares receipt against gateway log: no effect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after T-30
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With that row in the table, an implementer cannot pass by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> omitting the record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xinghua Zhao
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Independent researcher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ORCID 0009-0001-0512-1237
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Disclosure: drafting of this message was assisted by AI; all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positions reviewed and approved by me. Same disclosure as my earlier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages on this list.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>