DMSC Working Group S. Sun
Internet-Draft ICT, CAS
Intended status: Standards Track X. Zhang
Expires: 9 August 2026 CNIC, CAS
February 2026
Intent-based Agent Interconnection Protocol at Agent Gateway
draft-sun-zhang-iaip-00
Abstract
This document specifies the Intent-based Agent Interconnection
Protocol (IAIP) operating at the Agent Gateways (AG), which defines
the interaction mechanisms between AI Agents (at the Agent Domain)
and the AG (at the Interconnection Services Domain). This
specification focuses on dynamic interconnection among agents based
on semantic intent, rather than static network addressing alone.
This protocols defines the mechanisms for agent registration via
capability advertisement, Gateway Validation, Intent Resolution and
Matching, Routing Decisions and Forwarding, enabling the discovery,
selection and dispatching of intent queries based on agent
capabilities and task requirements at AG.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 5 August 2026.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Sun & Zhang Expires 9 August 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IAIP February 2026
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Problem Statement and Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Limitations of Address-Based Static Interconnection . . . 4
4.2. Representative Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Function Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Protocol Operation and Core Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Illustrative Protocol Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1.1. Example A: Agent Registration (CAP_ADV) . . . . . . . 12
8.1.2. Example B: Intent Resolution Flow . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1.3. Example C: Routing Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2. Agent Access Component (AAC) Operations . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2.1. Session Authentication and Integrity . . . . . . . . 13
8.2.2. Ingress Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.3. Local Capability Registry (LCR) Management . . . . . . . 14
8.3.1. Profile Creation and Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.3.2. Lifecycle Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.4. Intent Forwarding Routing Table (IFR) Decision Logic . . 14
8.4.1. Candidate Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.4.2. Constraint-Based Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.4.3. Semantic Evaluation and Ranking . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.4.4. Selection and Fallback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.5. Forwarding and Loop Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.6. Reliability and Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.7. Protocol Processing procedure at Agent Gateways . . . . . 15
9. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Sun & Zhang Expires 9 August 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IAIP February 2026
1. Introduction
The emergence of agentic networks marks a fundamental shift from
static, address-based networking to semantic, intent-driven
interactions. Autonomous agents powered by advanced artificial
intelligence models are capable of reasoning, planning, and executing
tasks on behalf of users or other agents. Interactions are
increasingly expressed in terms of high-level objectives or natural
language intents, rather than predefined service endpoints or static
interfaces.
Traditional networking and service discovery mechanisms assume that
communication targets are identified by fixed addresses, names, or
service identifiers. These assumptions no longer hold in agentic
environments, where the appropriate execution entity for a request
may depend on semantic interpretation, contextual constraints, and
dynamic system conditions. As a result, routing decisions based
solely on static addressing or preconfigured bindings are
insufficient to support flexible and scalable agent collaboration.
Intent-based interconnection addresses this gap by enabling the Agent
Gateway to resolve and forward requests according to their semantic
intent, rather than their destination address. By decoupling request
dispatch from rigid topology and static identifiers, intent-based
interconnection allows autonomous agents to be dynamically
discovered, selected, and invoked based on their advertised
capabilities.
This document introduces the Intent-based Agent Interconnection
Protocol (IAIP) to provide a standardized mechanism for capability-
based registration and validation, intent-aware discovery and routing
at AG. IAIP is designed to operate as an application-layer protocol
for interconnection service domain, complementing existing transport
and networking infrastructure without requiring changes to underlying
transport protocols.
2. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in .
3. Terminology
AI Agent An agent is a software or hardware entity with autonomous
Sun & Zhang Expires 9 August 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IAIP February 2026
decision-making and execution capabilities, capable of perceiving
the environment, acquiring contextual information, reasoning, and
learning.
Agent Gateway (AG) A Functional Component in the Interconnection
Service Domain that possesses the capbilities of agent
registration, capbility authentication, intent resolution and
estabilishing interconnection betweens agents.
Intent A declarative expression of a desired outcome. In the
intent-driven routing protocol, intent is represented at three
conceptual layers:
* *Human Intent:*A high-level, possibly ambiguous expression
originating from a human user or application (e.g., natural
language input). Human Intent is out of scope for the
protocol.
* *Task Intent:*An abstract, task-oriented description that
captures the objective of a request, independent of any
specific agent, algorithm, or execution plan.
* *Intent Descriptor:*A structured, machine-interpretable
representation of Task Intent used within IAIP for routing and
dispatching decisions.
Leader Agent (LA) Agent who issues tasks and launches interactions.
There should only be one Leader Agent in a complete task execution
process.
Partner Agent (PA) Agent who accepts tasks and provides services.
After Partner Agent receives a task from the Leader Agent, it
executes and returns the execution result.
4. Problem Statement and Use Cases
4.1. Limitations of Address-Based Static Interconnection
Existing network interconnection and gateway mechanisms are
predominantly organized around static identifiers, such as network
addresses, domain names, or service labels. At the application and
service-dispatch layer, these mechanisms assume that the
functionality associated with a agent behind a gateway is stable,
explicitly addressable and functionally static. While effective for
traditional client-server and microservice architectures, this
assumption becomes increasingly inadequate for the dynamic
interconnection required by agentic networks.
Sun & Zhang Expires 9 August 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IAIP February 2026
First, traditional interconnection protocols provide limited support
for expressing semantic intent. High-level requests such as "analyze
this dataset" or "resolve a billing issue" do not naturally
correspond to a single predefined endpoint. Encoding semantic
meaning into static addresses or service names requires manual
configuration and tight coupling between task requesters and service
providers, which undermines flexibility and scalability.
Second, static interconnection lacks adaptability to dynamic
lifecycle of AI Agents. In the Agent Domain, agents may be
instantiated, fine-tuned, or deprecated rapidly based on
computational load or task requirements. Static bindings or name-
based resolution mechanisms are generally unable to reflect real-time
changes in agent's availability or intent-processing capacity,
leading to service selection or routing dispatch failures.
Third, existing protocols offer limited support for intent-aware
resolution. When a request arrives at the gateway without a specific
destination address, traditional gateway have no mechanism to parse
the intent and match it against a local registry of vector-based
capabilities. This behavior is misaligned with agentic workflows,
where ambiguous or underspecified intents are common and may require
clarification, delegation, or escalation to more generalist agents.
These limitations motivate the need for an intent-driven
interconnection protocol specifically at the Agent Gateway that can
manage registration and routing based on semantic intent and
dynamically advertised capabilities, rather than relying solely on
fixed addresses or static identifiers. This protocol addresses these
challenges by transforming the gateway from a static packet forwarder
into a semantic ingress/egress point, enabling establishing agent
interconnection while maintaining compatibility with the
Interconnection Service Domain.
4.2. Representative Use Case
The following example illustrates a typical use case of the Intent-
based Agent Interconnection Protocol operating at the Agent Gateway.
A Customer Service Dispatcher Agent, acting as the Leader Agent,
transmits a user inquiry to the AG for intent resolution and service
response. Specialized Partner Agents (Billing, Technical Support,
Sales) have previously registered their specific semantic domains
with the AG. For explicit queries like "My credit card was charged
twice," the AG identifies a high-confidence semantic match and routes
the request to the Billing Agent. Upon completion, the AG relays the
result back to the Leader Agent. Conversely, when handling ambiguous
inputs (e.g., "I'm having a bad experience") where semantic
Sun & Zhang Expires 9 August 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IAIP February 2026
similarity scores fail to meet the required confidence threshold, the
AG encapsulates the intent and forwards the intent to a Generalist
Fallback Agent. This mechanism ensures the request is constructively
resolved via clarifying questions or human escalation, thereby
preventing service failure.
5. Function Components
Figure 1 illustrates the interaction diagram between AI agent and
Agent Gateway.
[Agent Domain] [Interconnection Service Domain]
+-----------+ IAIP +---------------+
| AI Agent | <-------------> | Agent Gateway | <---> [Core Router]
+-----------+ +---------------+
Figure 1: Interaction Diagram between AI Agent and Agent Gateway
To support the interaction with AI Agents, the AG MUST implement the
following specific Functional Components within the Interconnection
Service Domain.
* *Local Capability Registry (LCR):*The LCR maintains a dynamic
database of attached Agents. The function of LCR is to store the
Capability Profile of each registered agent. When an Agent sends
the capability updating request, the LCR updates the mapping.
* *Agent Access Component (AAC):*The AAC serves as the termination
point for the interconnection session between the AI Agent and the
Agent Gateway. The function of AAC is to manage authentication,
maintain session lifecycle, and verify message integrity. When an
AI Agent initiates a connection or transmits a message, the AAC
validates the agent's identity credentials and establishes the
interconnection for message forwarding.
* *Intent Forwarding Routing Table (IFR):*The IFR serves as the
dynamic routing decision engine within the Agent Gateway for
forwarding intent-based requests. Its primary function is to map
normalized intent vectors-derived from incoming task semantics-to
a set of eligible Partner agents. Based on real-time capability
matching scores, performance metrics (e.g., latency, success rate,
and resource availability), and policy constraints, the IFR
selects the optimal next-hop Partner agent for request forwarding.
6. Protocol Overview
The protocol functions in two primary phases.
Sun & Zhang Expires 9 August 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IAIP February 2026
* *Phase 1: Agent Registration & Capability Advertisement.*This
phase establishes the trust domain and service mesh. Both Leader
Agents and Partner Agents MUST complete Identity Registration with
the Agent Gateway (AG) to obtain the verifiable Agent Identity
Code (AIC). Following identity registration, Partner Agents (or
agents acting in a service-provisioning role) MUST additionally
perform Capability Advertisement to publish their functional
profiles to the Local Capability Registry (LCR).
* *Phase 2: Intent-based Routing and Forwarding.*This phase
establishes intent-based interconnection. The Leader Agent
submits its intent. The AG resolves it against the LCR and IFR,
selects suitable Partner Agents, and facilitates the connection.
Figure 2 illustrates the updated two-stage processing pipeline
between AI Agents and AG.
Sun & Zhang Expires 9 August 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IAIP February 2026
+--------------+ +------------------------+ +--------------+
| Leader Agent | | Agent Gateway | | Partner Agent|
|(Intent Init.)| |(Network Infrastructure)| |(Intent Exec.)|
+------+-------+ +------------+-----------+ +------+-------+
| | |
| Phase 1: Identity Reg & Capability Advt. |
| | |
|--(1) Identity Reg -->| |
| [ACP-IF-01] | |
| |<--(2) Identity Reg --|
| | [ACP-IF-01] |
| | |
| |<--(3) Publish Cap ---|
| | [ACP-IF-06] |
| | |
| |-->(4) Sync & Trust --|
| | [ADF / DTMgF] |
| | |
| Phase 2: Intent-based Routing |
| | |
|--(5) Submit Intent ->| |
| [Signed Vector] | |
| | |
| |-->(6) Resolve Intent-|
| | Match ADF DB |
| | DTMgF Filter |
| | |
| |<--(7) Cand. List ----|
| | [Ranked + Sig] |
|<--(8) Verify & Select| |
| | |
|=========(9) Routing and Execution =========>|
| [E2E via ACP-IF-08/09] |
|=============================================|
Figure 2: Two-Stage Processing Flow of IAIP
*Phase 1: Agent Registration & Capability Advertisement*
This stage is the prerequisite for any agent participation. It
involves Identity Registration (mandatory for all) and Capability
Publication (mandatory for service providers). The steps are as
follows:
* *Step1:*Identity Registration (Leader & Partner). Any Agent
(whether Leader or Partner) MUST register its identity with the
Agent Gateway using the ACP-IF-01 interface (between AIMF in the
agent and AIMgF in the AG). This establishes a verifiable Agent
Sun & Zhang Expires 9 August 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IAIP February 2026
Identity Code (AIC) and exchanges cryptographic credentials
required for future intent signing (Leader) or service execution
(Partner).
* *Step2:*Capability Publication (Partner Agent). The Partner Agent
publishes a structured capability description (e.g., supported
task types, performance bounds, resource constraints) to the Agent
Gateway via the ACP-IF-06 interface (ADMF <-> ADMgF). Note: If a
Leader Agent also wishes to serve tasks, it MUST also perform this
step.
* *Step3:*Synchronization to Interconnection Service Domain. The
Agent Gateway forwards the capability description to the Agent
Description Management Function (ADMgF) in the Interconnection
Service Domain. ADMgF persists the data and synchronizes it to
the Agent Discovery Function (ADF) for indexing.
* *Step4:*Trust Scope Enforcement. The Domain Trust Management
Function (DTMgF) applies domain federation policies to determine
whether the registered Agent is authorized to operate within the
specific trust domain. Only authorized capabilities are made
queryable via ADF.
*Phase 2: Intent-based Routing and Forwarding*
This stage is triggered when a registered Leader Agent submits a
semantic intent request. The Agent Gateway resolves and routes the
intent to eligible Partner Agents. The steps are as follows:
* *Step5:*Intent Submission. The Leader Agent sends a signed
semantic intent vector to the Agent Gateway. The signature MUST
be generated using the credentials established in Step 1. The
payload contains abstract task semantics.
* *Step6:*Intent Resolution and Candidate Matching. The Agent
Gateway invokes the ACP-IF-07 interface to query the ADF. The IFR
(Intent Forwarding Routing Table) performs semantic matching
against the LCR, filtering based on trust scopes, and ranking
candidates.
* *Step7:*Candidate Agents Return. The Gateway returns a ranked
list of eligible Partner Agents to the Leader Agent.
* *Step8:*Leader-side Verification and Selection. The Leader Agent
verifies the gateway's signature and selects one or more Partners
based on local policy.
Sun & Zhang Expires 9 August 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IAIP February 2026
* *Step9:*Routing and Execution. The Leader Agent establishes a
direct end-to-end session with the selected Partner Agent(s) using
ACP-IF-08 for point-to-point interaction, or ACP-IF-09 for
grouping-mode collaboration. All task payloads are transmitted
over this encrypted channel.
7. Message Formats
This section specifies the binary structure of IAIP messages. The
protocol uses a Type-Length-Value (TLV) design to ensure
extensibility.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| IAIP Message (TLV-based) |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| +-------------------+------+-----------------------------------+ |
| | Type | Len | Value | |
| +-------------------+------+-----------------------------------+ |
| | Common Header TLVs | |
| +-------------------+------+-----------------------------------+ |
| | VERSION | 1 | Protocol version | |
| | MSG_TYPE | 1 | INTENT_REQ / CAP_ADV / ERROR | |
| | MSG_ID | var | Unique message identifier | |
| | SENDER_ID | var | Source agent / router ID | |
| | RECEIVER_ID | var | Target agent / router ID | |
| | TIMESTAMP | 8 | Unix time / logical time | |
| | TTL / EXPIRY | 4 | Validity / hop limit | |
| | CORRELATION_ID | var | Request-response correlation | |
| | INTEGRITY_TAG | var | MAC / signature | |
| +-------------------+------+-----------------------------------+ |
| |
| +-------------------+------+-----------------------------------+ |
| | Payload TLVs (depend on MSG_TYPE) | |
| +-------------------+------+-----------------------------------+ |
| |
| -- CAPABILITY ADVERTISEMENT (CAP_ADV) -------------------------- |
| | AGENT_ID | var | Advertising agent identifier | |
| | ENDPOINT | var | Network / logical endpoint | |
| | FUNC_DESC | var | Functional descriptors | |
| | INTENT_DOMAINS | var | Supported intent types | |
| | IO_SCHEMA | var | Input/output constraints | |
| | PERF_METRICS | var | Latency, success rate, etc. | |
| | RESOURCE_LIMITS | var | Token / compute budget | |
| |
| -- CAPABILITY REFRESH (CAP_REFRESH) ---------------------------- |
| | AGENT_ID | var | Agent identifier | |
| | TTL_UPDATE | 4 | Extended lifetime | |
Sun & Zhang Expires 9 August 2026 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IAIP February 2026
| | METRIC_DELTA | var | Updated performance metrics | |
| |
| -- CAPABILITY DEREGISTER (CAP_DEREGISTER) ---------------------- |
| | AGENT_ID | var | Agent identifier | |
| | REASON_CODE | 2 | Deregistration reason | |
| | EFFECTIVE_TIME | 8 | Time of effect | |
| |
| -- INTENT REQUEST (INTENT_REQ) --------------------------------- |
| | OBJECTIVE | var | Task objective | |
| | CONSTRAINTS | var | Preferences / limits | |
| | CONTEXT | var | Context metadata | |
| | PRIORITY | 1 | Request priority | |
| | BUDGET | var | Cost / token budget | |
| | PRIVACY_FLAG | 1 | Intent privacy level | |
| | OBFUSCATED_INTENT | var | Encrypted / masked intent | |
| |
| -- ROUTE DECISION / INTENT RESPONSE ---------------------------- |
| | TARGET_AGENT_LIST | var | Selected target agent(s) | |
| | MATCH_CONFIDENCE | var | Similarity / rank score | |
| | FORWARDING_INFO | var | Next-hop / endpoint | |
| | FALLBACK_INDIC. | 1 | Fallback used? | |
| |
| -- ROUTING FEEDBACK -------------------------------------------- |
| | OUTCOME | 1 | Success / failure | |
| | OBSERVED_LATENCY | var | Execution latency | |
| | OBSERVED_COST | var | Resource usage | |
| | ERROR_INFO | var | Error details | |
| |
| -- ERROR MESSAGE ----------------------------------------------- |
| | ERROR_CODE | 2 | Error identifier | |
| | DIAGNOSTIC | var | Human-readable info | |
| | RETRY_AFTER | 4 | Backoff hint | |
| |
| -- SECURITY EXTENSION (SECURITY_EXT) --------------------------- |
| | AUTHN_INFO | var | Certificate / token ref | |
| | AUTHZ_SCOPE | var | Authorization scope | |
| | NONCE | var | Anti-replay | |
| | SIGNATURE / MAC | var | Integrity protection | |
| | ENCRYPTION_CTX | var | Intent confidentiality ctx | |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 3: IAIP message format
The table above summarizes the field requirements. Key fields
include:
*MSG_TYPE* Identifies the payload type (e.g., 0x01: CAP_ADV, 0x02:
Sun & Zhang Expires 9 August 2026 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IAIP February 2026
INTENT_REQ).
*TTL / EXPIRY* Time-To-Live logic depending on message type. For
routing messages (INTENT_REQ), this represents the hop limit. For
registration messages, this represents the validity duration in
seconds.
*OBJECTIVE (in INTENT_REQ)* The semantic vector or structured
description of the task.
*RESOURCE_LIMITS (in CAP_ADV)* Specifies operational constraints,
including token budget per request and computational cost.
*FALLBACK_INDIC. (in RESPONSE)* Flag indicating if a generalist
fallback agent was used (0x01) or a direct match was found (0x00).
8. Protocol Operation and Core Procedures
This section specifies the normative processing behavior of the Agent
Gateway (AG), organized by the functional components defined in
Section 5. The Agent Access Component (AAC) handles ingress
connectivity and security; the Local Capability Registry (LCR)
manages state; and the Intent Forwarding Routing Table (IFR) executes
decision logic.
8.1. Illustrative Protocol Examples
The examples in this section are provided for illustration only and
are non-normative.
8.1.1. Example A: Agent Registration (CAP_ADV)
A Partner Agent registers its translation service with cost
constraints.
[Common Header] MSG_TYPE =
CAP_ADV SENDER_ID = "agent-trans-01", TTL/EXPIRY = 3600 [Payload],
FUNC_DESC = "service:translation; lang:en-to-zh", RESOURCE_LIMITS =
"max_tokens=2048", SECURITY_EXT = "(signature bytes...)"
8.1.2. Example B: Intent Resolution Flow
*Step 1: Leader Agent sends Intent Request*
[Common Header] MSG_TYPE =
INTENT_REQ SENDER_ID = "leader-agent-007", MSG_ID = "req-1024"
[Payload], OBJECTIVE = "(vector: [0.12, 0.95, ...])", BUDGET =
"100"
Sun & Zhang Expires 9 August 2026 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IAIP February 2026
*Step 2: Gateway returns Candidate List (Response)*
The AG finds two matching agents. The first one is a direct match,
so Fallback Indicator is 0.
[Common Header] MSG_TYPE =
RESPONSE RECEIVER_ID = "leader-agent-007", CORRELATION_ID =
"req-1024" [Payload], TARGET_AGENT_LIST = [1] "agent-trans-01"
(Conf: 0.92, Endpoint: "10.0.1.5:8080"), [2] "agent-trans-03" (Conf:
0.85, Endpoint: "10.0.1.8:8080"), FALLBACK_INDIC. = 0x00 (No
Fallback)
8.1.3. Example C: Routing Feedback
After execution, the Leader Agent reports performance metrics back to
the AG to update the LCR's dynamic scores.
[Common Header] MSG_TYPE =
ROUTING_FEEDBACK SENDER_ID = "leader-agent-007" [Payload], OUTCOME =
1 (Success), OBSERVED_LATENCY = 250 (ms), OBSERVED_COST = 50
(tokens)
8.2. Agent Access Component (AAC) Operations
The AAC serves as the termination point for the interconnection
session. It MUST intercept all incoming IAIP messages before they
reach the LCR or IFR.
8.2.1. Session Authentication and Integrity
Upon receiving any message, the AAC MUST perform the following
validations:
* *Identity Verification:* Validate the SENDER_ID against the
credentials provided in the AUTHN_INFO TLV or the underlying
transport session (e.g., mTLS).
* *Message Integrity:* Verify the INTEGRITY_TAG or SIGNATURE. If
verification fails, the AAC MUST drop the message and return an
ERROR with code AUTH_FAILED.
8.2.2. Ingress Validation
The AAC acts as the first line of defense. It MUST validate the
syntax of Common Header fields (e.g., VERSION, MSG_TYPE). Malformed
packets MUST be rejected immediately to protect the internal IFR
engine.
Sun & Zhang Expires 9 August 2026 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IAIP February 2026
8.3. Local Capability Registry (LCR) Management
The LCR maintains the dynamic database of attached Agents. It
processes capability management messages validated by the AAC.
8.3.1. Profile Creation and Updates
When the AAC forwards a CAP_ADV message, the LCR MUST:
1. Extract the AGENT_ID and map it to the provided ENDPOINT.
2. Store the FUNC_DESC, INTENT_DOMAINS, and RESOURCE_LIMITS as the
agent's Capability Profile.
3. Set the entry's expiration time to Current_Time + TTL.
8.3.2. Lifecycle Maintenance
Upon receiving a CAP_REFRESH, the LCR MUST look up the existing
profile and extend its validity by TTL_UPDATE.
The LCR MUST periodically purge entries that have exceeded their
expiry time without refresh (STALE state) to ensure the IFR does not
route to dead agents.
8.4. Intent Forwarding Routing Table (IFR) Decision Logic
The Intent Forwarding Routing Table (IFR) functions as the dynamic
routing engine of the Agent Gateway. After an INTENT_REQ
successfully passes AAC validation, the IFR MUST evaluate the request
and produce a ranked TARGET_AGENT_LIST containing one or more
eligible Partner Agents.
8.4.1. Candidate Retrieval
The IFR MUST interpret the OBJECTIVE TLV as an intent descriptor and
query the Local Capability Registry (LCR) to obtain the current set
of active Capability Profiles.
8.4.2. Constraint-Based Filtering
The IFR MUST apply mandatory constraints to reduce the candidate set
prior to semantic evaluation. When a request includes constraint
fields such as BUDGET, the IFR MUST compare these constraints against
the corresponding attributes in the Capability Profiles (e.g.,
RESOURCE_LIMITS) and exclude agents that do not satisfy the required
conditions.
Sun & Zhang Expires 9 August 2026 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IAIP February 2026
Additional policy-based constraints MAY be applied according to local
administrative policy.
8.4.3. Semantic Evaluation and Ranking
For the remaining candidates, the IFR MUST perform semantic matching
between the request intent and the advertised capabilities. The
specific matching method is implementation-dependent; however, the
IFR MUST compute a relative confidence score that reflects the degree
of intent-capability alignment.
The IFR MAY incorporate additional operational signals, such as
historical performance metrics (e.g., latency or success rate), when
deriving the final ranking.
The IFR MUST preserve the relative ordering of candidates when
constructing the TARGET_AGENT_LIST.
8.4.4. Selection and Fallback
The IFR SHOULD select the highest-ranked candidates for inclusion in
the response, subject to local policy.
If no candidate satisfies the acceptance criteria (e.g., minimum
confidence threshold), the IFR SHOULD invoke the Fallback Mechanism.
When fallback is applied, the Agent Gateway MUST set FALLBACK_INDIC
to 0x01.
8.5. Forwarding and Loop Prevention
For multi-hop scenarios, the AG enforces loop prevention using the
TTL field in the Common Header. If TTL <= 1, the request is dropped.
Duplicate MSG_ID, are suppressed to prevent broadcast storms.
8.6. Reliability and Error Handling
Errors detected by any component (AAC auth failure, LCR parsing
error, IFR no-route) MUST result in an ERROR message returned to the
sender, containing the appropriate ERROR_CODE.
8.7. Protocol Processing procedure at Agent Gateways
Figure 3 illustrates the protocol processing pipeline within the
Agent Gateway (AG). The protocol operation relies on the
coordination between three normative functional components: the Agent
Access Component (AAC), the Local Capability Registry (LCR), and the
Intent Forwarding Routing Table (IFR).
Sun & Zhang Expires 9 August 2026 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IAIP February 2026
The process begins when a Partner Agent transmits a capability
advertisement (CAP_ADV) [Section 8.1.1].
*Ingress Validation:* The AAC [Section 8.2] intercepts the message to
perform session authentication and integrity verification.
*Registry Update:*Upon successful validation, the AAC forwards the
payload to the LCR [Section 8.3]. The LCR parses the functional
descriptors and updates its internal database, mapping the agent's
semantic profile to its network endpoint.
The routing process is triggered when a Leader Agent submits an
intent request (INTENT_REQ) [Section 8.1.2].
*Ingress Validation:*The AAC validates the request format and the
sender's authorization scope.
*Routing Decision:*Validated requests are passed to the IFR
[Section 8.4], which executes the core decision logic:
* *Candidate Retrieval:*The IFR queries the LCR [Section 8.4.1] to
retrieve active agents capable of satisfying the intent objective.
* *Filtering:*Mandatory constraints (e.g., budget, latency) are
applied to prune ineligible candidates [Section 8.4.2].
* *Ranking:*The IFR performs semantic evaluation [Section 8.4.3] to
assign confidence scores to the remaining candidates.
* *Selection:*The eligible partner agents are selected based on
local policy and fallback mechanisms [Section 8.4.4].
*Egress Processing:*The partner agent list is passed to the
Forwarding module [Section 8.5]. This module enforces Time-To-Live
(TTL) checks and duplicate suppression to prevent routing loops
before dispatching the forwarded request to the Partner Agent.
Sun & Zhang Expires 9 August 2026 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IAIP February 2026
+--------------+ +--------------+
| Leader Agent | | Partner Agent|
| (Source/App) | | (Target/Phy) |
+-------+------+ +-------+------+
| (2) Intent Req | (1) CAP_ADV
| [Sec 8.1.2] | [Sec 8.1.1]
v v
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Agent Gateway (Interconnection Domain) |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| +--------------+ (CAP_ADV) +--------------------+ |
| | Agent Access |------------------------->| Local Capability | |
| | Comp (AAC) | | Registry (LCR) | |
| | [Sec 8.2] | | [Sec 8.3] | |
| +------+-------+ +---------+----------+ |
| | ^ |
| | (INTENT_REQ) | Candidate |
| v | Retrieval |
| +---------------------------------------------------+----------+ |
| | Intent Forwarding Routing Table (IFR) [Sec 8.4] | |
| |--------------------------------------------------------------| |
| | 1. Candidate Retrieval (Query LCR) [Sec 8.4.1] --------------+ |
| | 2. Constraint Filtering [Sec 8.4.2] | |
| | 3. Semantic Eval & Ranking [Sec 8.4.3] | |
| | 4. Selection & Fallback [Sec 8.4.4] | |
| +------+-------------------------------------------------------+ |
| | Selected Target List |
| v |
| +----------------------+ |
| | Forwarding & Loop | |
| | Prevention [Sec 8.5] | |
| +------+---------------+ |
| | |
+--------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| (3) Forwarded Request
v
+-------------+
| Partner Agt |
| (Execution) |
+-------------+
Figure 4: Protocol Processing procedure at Agent Gateways
Sun & Zhang Expires 9 August 2026 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IAIP February 2026
9. Conclusions
This document specifies the functional components, protocol
procedures, and message formats of the Intent-based Agent
Interconnection Protocol (IAIP). It defines the mechanisms for
capability-aware registration, semantic intent resolution, and
dynamic routing. By abstracting the complexity of agent discovery
and intent matching, IAIP ensures scalable and adaptive collaboration
across heterogeneous agent systems.
10. Security Considerations
This document focuses on the Intent-based Agent Interconnection
Protocol at the Agent Gateway for inter-agent collaboration in the
Internet of Agents (IoA). Security of the IoA ecosystem is not
detailed in this document. Security considerations relevant to
cross-domain intent routing, capability advertisement integrity,
trust federation among multiple agent service providers, and end-to-
end confidentiality of agent interactions are suggested to be deeply
discussed through other proposals.
11. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request for IANA action.
12. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
.
Authors' Addresses
Sheng Sun
ICT, CAS
Email: sunsheng@ict.ac.cn
Xinyi Zhang
CNIC, CAS
Email: xyzhang@cnic.cn
Sun & Zhang Expires 9 August 2026 [Page 18]