So it seems to be a random person cosplaying as a spec author. Or possibly trying to have something impressive on their résumé.
“Our AI invented its own AI-native protocol for other AIs, see? Far beyond human comprehension, but it graciously dumbed it down for the legacy meatsacks of IETF. AGI!”
I don't understand what problem this is trying to solve though.
I don't get how this is better than an HTTP API (especially since payloads are just UTF8 json), and that's entirely down to the document not telling us anything of substance. I get it's "experimental", but there isn't much of an experiment being described here apart from a different message frame that allows us to leave out the http headers and add a signature (while apparently using the assumption that each ip only hosts one AIIP service)
I was not expecting such ambiguous and inaccurate wording from IETF. Why "ai" and not, how it was traditionally called on the web, "robots"?
And of course this does not make any sense since vast majority of HTTP traffic is already autonomous.
Does the IETF have a red fat button on their desks, like the one often seen on variety shows, to instantly disqualify low effort submissions? You can infer that the document (and the interaction between the culprit and the IETF) was half-assed with the help of AI: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/ss-g3OHTtwHwyBDl0c....
AGI?
I get very strong "E = mc^2 + AI" vibes from it, just shoehorning the coveted letters everywhere
eob•1mo ago
In general, interoperability and user choice are really important for us to get right as the community of people building AI platforms...
Have others reading this document been able to map it onto their work?
As a specific example:
> ai://bank/service/payments?amount=10¤cy=USD
I'm not sure what this is representing here. Is it a way to encode a clickable link to chat with `bank` about `service/payments` with a few additional args attached?