Re: [aivs] Kickoff and first meeting

Ben and Erik,
thanks for keeping everyone in the loop, could you perhaps clarify the
overlap/convergence of this effort with parallel IETF draft specs as I may
be losing track
For me it is important to understand whether contributions made through W3C
end up in IETF *with attribution is OK of course
Thank you
Best
PDM


On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 11:15 AM Ben Stone <swarmsync@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Erik — this framing makes sense to me.
>
> I’ll comment directly on the GitHub issues where the original
> draft-stone-aivs-00 design intent is most relevant, especially around the
> self-verifiable bundle model, AIVS-Micro, verify.py behavior, conformance
> tiers, and the relationship between the core offline proof format and
> optional higher-assurance layers like SCITT.
>
> I agree that the CG should treat both inputs as material for discussion
> rather than as fixed drafts. My main goal is to preserve the core AIVS
> property that made the original draft useful: a portable proof bundle that
> can be verified offline without depending on a service, while still
> allowing stronger profiles for signatures, transparency registration, and
> attestation.
>
> Ben
>
> On May 18, 2026, at 8:31 AM, Erik Newton <eriknewton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
> Welcome, Jinghan, and thank you for the strawman input.
>
> Filing the open design questions as scoped GitHub issues is exactly the
> async-review-then-meeting-lock shape this CG needs ahead of the first
> meeting. Members: please comment directly on the eight open issues at
> https://github.com/swarmsync-ai/aivs-spec/issues so the meeting can focus
> on resolution rather than rediscovery.
>
> One framing note for the group. Jinghan's strawman is one input draft, not
> the editor's draft; editorship and authorship are for the CG to agree. The
> relationship to Ben Stone's draft-stone-aivs-00 holds the same way: Ben's
> I-D is the problem-framing input on the IETF side, Jinghan's strawman is a
> wire-format input on the W3C side, and the CG decides what to fold,
> replace, or carry forward. Both inputs are welcome and neither is
> privileged.
>
> Substantively, the SCITT-registration-profile question (issue #14)
> overlaps directly with prior art the group should look at as part of the
> discussion: the Concordia session-receipt schema (
> https://github.com/eriknewton/Concordia, v0.6 cut shipped to PyPI
> 2026-05-17) and the Sanctuary attestation envelope (
> https://github.com/eriknewton/sanctuary-framework, v1.3.0-rc.2 published
> 2026-05-17). Both are public, both have receipt structures that compose
> cleanly with the AIVS-Micro size target (issue #15), and both are open to
> AIVS profile alignment if the CG decides to define one. I will write that
> up as a comment on issues #14 and #15 over the next few days so the group
> has concrete prior-art pointers to react to.
>
> I will also fold Jinghan's availability slots (May 23 03:00 UTC, May 27
> 03:00 UTC) into the consolidated availability tally for the first-meeting
> scheduling. That tally will go out as a separate message on the list once a
> few more replies arrive.
>
> Erik
> Co-chair, AIVS CG
>
>
> Erik Newton
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2026 at 11:33 AM, 张靖瀚 <zhangjinghan1122@bupt.edu.cn>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Erik and all,
>>
>> As discussed on the list, I have prepared an input strawman for AIVS v1.0
>> to support the group's discussion ahead of and during the first meeting. It
>> is explicitly contributed as a starting point, not as a pre-decided
>> editor's draft — editorship and authorship are for the group to agree.
>> The draft builds on the problem framing in Ben Stone's
>> draft-stone-aivs-00 and proposes a concrete wire format (hash chain +
>> Ed25519 + manifest + AIVS-Micro).
>> To make review easier both before and during the meeting, I have:
>> Filed the open design questions as individual GitHub issues (linked
>> below), each scoped so members can comment in parallel.
>> Marked the strawman's most uncertain sections with "OPEN-ISSUE" anchors
>> that point back to those issues.
>>
>> Committed to circulating a revision summary within one week after the
>> meeting, incorporating whatever the group decides — whether discussed live
>> or in writing.
>> Draft PR: https://github.com/swarmsync-ai/aivs-spec/pull/1
>> Open design issues for async review:
>> [#10] Hash input canonicalization: length-prefix vs JCS —
>> https://github.com/swarmsync-ai/aivs-spec/issues/10
>> [#11] Should input/output content be bound to row_hash? —
>> https://github.com/swarmsync-ai/aivs-spec/issues/11
>> [#12] Action type registry — initial seed values and registration policy
>> — https://github.com/swarmsync-ai/aivs-spec/issues/12
>> [#13] verify.py interface contract —
>> https://github.com/swarmsync-ai/aivs-spec/issues/13
>> [#14] Relationship to SCITT — should AIVS define a registration profile?
>> — https://github.com/swarmsync-ai/aivs-spec/issues/14
>> [#15] AIVS-Micro use cases — is ~200 bytes the right size target? —
>> https://github.com/swarmsync-ai/aivs-spec/issues/15
>> [#16] TEE attestation — SGX-only or generalized profile? —
>> https://github.com/swarmsync-ai/aivs-spec/issues/16
>> [#17] Conformance levels — should AIVS define tiered profiles? —
>> https://github.com/swarmsync-ai/aivs-spec/issues/17
>> Please feel free to comment directly on the issues, in this thread, or on
>> a PR against the draft. I will track everything and reconcile it in the
>> next revision.
>> Best,
>> Jinghan
>>
>>
>> ----------回复的邮件信息----------
>> Erik Newton <eriknewton@gmail.com> 在 Fri,May 8,2026 4:50 AM写道：
>> Welcome, Jinghan. Glad to have you on the list.
>>
>> Yes, please draft the five-section repository structure ahead of the
>> first meeting. Members can review and comment async, and we lock the
>> structure at the meeting once we have quorum.
>>
>> Noting your availability slots (May 23 03:00 UTC and May 27 03:00 UTC).
>> I will fold them into the consolidated availability tally and post the
>> candidate meeting times once a few more replies arrive.
>>
>> Erik
>>
>>
>> Erik Newton
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 05, 2026 at 10:26 PM, 张靖瀚 <zhangjinghan1122@bupt.edu.cn>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Erik, Ben, and AIVS Community Group members,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   Thank you to both chairs for starting this discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   My name is Jinghan Zhang, and I am a senior undergraduate student at
>>> Beijing
>>>   University of Posts and Telecommunications (BUPT). My research
>>> interests are mainly
>>>    in trusted AI agent systems, including applied cryptography and
>>> verifiability
>>>   mechanisms, decentralized infrastructure, agent interaction protocols,
>>> and agent
>>>   reputation and auditability.
>>>
>>>
>>>   What especially interests me about AIVS is the verification layer.
>>> Without
>>>   portable, self-verifiable, and tamper-evident proofs of agent sessions
>>> and actions,
>>>    the upper layers of identity, reputation, and compliance can easily
>>> fall back to
>>>   vendor-attested claims. I am also interested in how this kind of
>>> specification can
>>>   remain strongly verifiable while still being practical to adopt across
>>> existing
>>>   agent frameworks and implementation paths.
>>>
>>>   For the first meeting, I am currently available at:
>>>
>>>    May 23, 03:00 UTC
>>>    May 27, 03:00 UTC
>>>
>>>
>>>   If needed, I will also do my best to accommodate nearby times.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   If useful to the group, I would also be happy to continue contributing
>>> to
>>>   discussions around repository structure, document collaboration, and
>>> early
>>>   work-item organization.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   I look forward to working with everyone on this effort.
>>>
>>>
>>>   Best regards,
>>>
>>>   Jinghan Zhang
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------回复的邮件信息----------
>>> Erik Newton <eriknewton@gmail.com> 在 Tue,May 5,2026 2:41 AM写道：
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Welcome to the Agentic Integrity Verification Specification (AIVS)
>>> Community Group. Ben Stone and I are the designated co-chairs, and this is
>>> our official kickoff note. The CG was chartered on April 5 with 8
>>> participants (we're up to 10 now) — thank you to the founding proposers
>>> (Ben Stone, Ruoxi Ran, Robert Douglas Muncaster, Khushboo Parmar, and Erik
>>> Delgado) for getting us here.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's been about a month since we launched, and Ben and I want to
>>> schedule our first working meeting before momentum slips.
>>>
>>> The charter we drafted in March points at a real and increasingly
>>> important problem space: portable, self-verifiable cryptographic proof of
>>> agent sessions, with EU AI Act Article 19, ISO/IEC 42001, and NIST AI RMF
>>> as the regulatory tailwinds. The agent stack is wiring itself together fast
>>> around us, and the verification layer is one of the seams where standards
>>> work matters most. We should not let it slip while everyone else moves.
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose a first meeting in the window of *May 22** through **June
>>> 12, 2026*. Sixty minutes, via video. The agenda would be deliberately
>>> open and collaborative:
>>>
>>>    1.
>>>
>>>    Confirm scope. Are we still aligned on what AIVS v1..0 should look
>>>    like, or has our shared understanding shifted since March? If it has, that
>>>    is healthy, and we should re-anchor.
>>>    2.
>>>
>>>    Surface existing aligned work in the problem space. The AIVS v1.0
>>>    starting-point spec is one anchor. Members are likely tracking or
>>>    contributing to other open-source efforts in the same neighborhood; a brief
>>>    tour from anyone who wants to share is welcome.
>>>    3.
>>>
>>>    Identify our first work item or items together. Member-driven. The
>>>    chairs facilitate; members drive.
>>>    4.
>>>
>>>    Establish a regular meeting cadence. Monthly is the typical CG
>>>    default; we can adjust.
>>>
>>> Two asks before the first meeting:
>>>
>>>    1. Introduce yourself on this thread — name, organization, and what
>>>    aspects of verifiable signals for AI agents interest you most.
>>>    2. Please reply with your availability in May 22 through June 12,
>>>    2026 window. I will consolidate responses and send a final time once
>>>    we have quorum.
>>>
>>> If anyone has work-item suggestions they would like circulated before
>>> the meeting so members can review in advance, send them to the public list
>>> and I will batch them into a pre-meeting digest.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to getting started.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Erik Newton
>>> Co-chair, AIVS Community Group
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Erik Newton
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>