Re: [aivs] Kickoff and first meeting

Thank you Erik!
Purely to reduce cognitive load/mental split, it could be helpful if the
resources in parallel efforts could be cross referenced where they
coincide, and ideally, synchronized, *so that we dont have to remember to
look up
both files each time to see the status *just a suggestion!
Best
PDM



On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 12:57 PM Erik Newton <eriknewton@gmail.com> wrote:

> PDM,
>
> Two parts to it.
>
> On venue overlap: W3C AIVS (Jinghan Zhang at swarmsync-ai/aivs-spec) and
> Ben's IETF draft are parallel tracks working similar shape problems. I
> don't know if they're formally coordinated; Ben can speak to the IETF side.
> My read from the substrate side is that the signing primitives compose
> either way, so contributions land usefully in both venues regardless of
> formal alignment.
>
> On attribution: both W3C and IETF preserve contributor lineage as a matter
> of process, and cross-venue informative references are standard.
> Self-attributing contributions (signing your name on the issue or PR) is
> the simplest way to make sure lineage carries through.
>
> Concordia v0.6.0 receipt schema and Sanctuary's attestation envelope are
> open-source and available to both venues. I commented on W3C issues #14
> (SCITT registration profile) and #15 (AIVS-Micro size target) earlier this
> week to put the substrate work on record. Happy to coordinate if AIVS wants
> a venue-mapping sketch.
>
> — Erik
>
>
> Erik Newton
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 8:27 PM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>