



rtgwg                                                             B. Liu
Internet-Draft                                                   N. Geng
Intended status: Informational                                  X. Shang
Expires: 6 May 2026                                               Q. Gao
                                                                   Z. Li
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                         2 November 2025


                     Requirements for Agent Gateway
             draft-liu-rtgwg-agent-gateway-requirements-00

Abstract

   This document discusses the requirements for introducing Agent
   Gateways into Agent-to-Agent communications for better scalability,
   communication efficiency, and security etc.  This document also
   discusses the gaps of current hardware/software gateways that could
   not fulfil the task, so that a new kind of entity, e.g. Agent
   Gateway, is needed.

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 6 May 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   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



Liu, et al.                Expires 6 May 2026                   [Page 1]

Internet-Draft         Agent Gateway Requirements          November 2025


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Functional Requirements of Agent Gateway  . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Delegated Agent Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       2.1.1.  ID-based Agent Location Resolution  . . . . . . . . .   3
       2.1.2.  Task-based Agent Searching  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Agent Communication Access Control  . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.3.  Information Distribution among Agents . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.3.1.  Point-to-Point Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.3.2.  Pub/Sub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Gap Analysis of Current Gateways  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.1.  Hardware form Gateways  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.2.  Software form Gateways  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Agent Gateway Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   The Internet of Agents (IoA) is driving a shift in the communication
   model from the traditional host-to-host (or client-server) model to
   an Agent-to-Agent interaction model.

   One of the core characteristics of an Agent is autonomy, which
   consequently generates a demand for highly dynamic networking.
   Introducing Agent Gateways that acting as a crucial intermediary
   layer is a good approach to enable efficient Agent discovery,
   information distribution among Agents, Quality of Service (QoS) and
   security assurance for Agent communications.

   This document discusses the requirements for introducing Agent
   Gateways into Agent-to-Agent communications in terms of what benefits
   could be brought by the Agent Gateways.

   In theory, Agents could be interconnected without any intermidiate
   Agent-specific gateways.  However, significant chanllenges (including
   issues of scalability, security, communication efficiency etc.) could
   rise if Agents just interconnect in a fully open and un-managed way.




Liu, et al.                Expires 6 May 2026                   [Page 2]

Internet-Draft         Agent Gateway Requirements          November 2025


1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Functional Requirements of Agent Gateway

2.1.  Delegated Agent Discovery

   In dynamic, heterogeneous, and variable-scale AI Agent environments,
   traditional discovery and addressing mechanisms based on static
   configuration or simple service names are no longer sufficient to
   meet the demand.

   The complexity of Agent communication requires the Agent Gateway to
   provide higher levels of abstraction and intelligent services.  This
   subsection discusses two critical enhanced discovery and addressing
   mechanisms: Agent ID based addressing and task decomposition based
   Agent discovery.

2.1.1.  ID-based Agent Location Resolution

   In an Agent network, every Agent should be assigned a globally
   unique, persistent, and infrastructure-agnostic identifier, known as
   the Agent ID.  One of the core functions of the Agent Gateway is to
   act as the resolver for this unified namespace, providing transparent
   addressing services for Agents:

   *  Agent ID Registration (Optional): Each Agent, upon startup, can
      delegate the ID registration task to the Agent Gateway, thereby
      eliminating the need to specially implement a set of protocols and
      logic for communicating with a registration server.

   *  Addressing Request: When an Initiator Agent needs to communicate
      with a Target Agent, it does not need to know any network details
      of the target, such as its IP address.  It only needs to specify
      the Target Agent's ID in the communication request.











Liu, et al.                Expires 6 May 2026                   [Page 3]

Internet-Draft         Agent Gateway Requirements          November 2025


   *  Address Resolution and Routing: The Agent Gateway receives the
      request and queries its local or external servers for the latest
      reachability information corresponding to the Agent ID.
      Subsequently, the gateway is responsible for establishing or
      forwarding the communication flow, accurately routing the message
      to the Target Agent.  This process may involve complex low-level
      operations such as protocol translation and Network Address
      Translation (NAT) traversal.

   This mechanism offers the following benefits:

   *  Decoupling and Simplification: Agent developers can focus on their
      business logic without having to deal with network-layer IP
      address resolution, achieving complete decoupling between business
      logic and the communication infrastructure.

   *  Security and Policy Enforcement: The Gateway, acting as a central
      control point, can enforce security policies during the addressing
      resolution phase, such as verifying whether the initiator has
      permission to communicate with the target, thereby embedding
      security control at the very beginning of communication
      establishment.

2.1.2.  Task-based Agent Searching

   In many collaborative scenarios, the Initiator Agent may not know
   which specific Agent it needs to interact with but rather has a high-
   level task objective to accomplish.  This necessitates the Agent
   Gateway providing an Intent-Based or Capability-Based discovery
   mechanism:

   *  Capability Registration (Optional): In addition to the Agent ID,
      each Agent must declare a set of "capabilities" it provides to the
      Gateway upon registration.  These capabilities can be described
      using structured attributes and should follow a common capability
      model schema.

   *  Task Declaration: The Initiator Agent submits a task request to
      the Gateway, such as "translate this Chinese document into
      English" or "analyze the buildings in this satellite image."  This
      request is a declaration of the desired outcome, rather than a
      call to a specific service.









Liu, et al.                Expires 6 May 2026                   [Page 4]

Internet-Draft         Agent Gateway Requirements          November 2025


   *  Task Decomposition and Capability Matching: The Agent Gateway
      either contains or can access a task decomposition engine.  For
      complex tasks, the gateway can break them down into a series of
      sub-tasks (e.g., "document parsing" -> "Chinese-to-English
      translation" -> "format re-structuring").  Subsequently, the
      gateway searches its registration repository for Agents whose
      capability descriptions match each (sub) task.

   *  Agent Recommendation or Orchestration: The Gateway returns the
      list of discovered Agents that can satisfy the task requirements
      to the Initiator Agent, which then selects one.  In a more
      automated mode, the Gateway can directly act as an Orchestrator,
      routing the task request to the most suitable Agent, or even
      coordinating multiple Agents to collectively complete a complex
      task chain.

   Gateway-based mechanism offers the following benefits:

   *  Flexibility for Local Collaboration: For Agents to break away from
      statically orchestrated workflows or service call chains, they
      usually rely on the inference and orchestration capabilities of
      Large Language Models (LLMs).  However, in certain security/
      privacy-sensitive or highly localized scenarios, some Agents may
      only be available locally.  LLMs cannot discover these Agents and
      thus cannot orchestrate their tasks.  By using a locally deployed
      Gateway, local Agents, once their capabilities are registered, can
      be automatically included in the scope of task consideration.
      This allows Agent ecosystems that are only deployed locally to
      dynamically adapt and evolve.

   *  Increased Abstraction Level: The interaction between Agents is
      elevated from the level of "how to call" to "what needs to be
      done," significantly simplifying the programming model for complex
      tasks.  This is equivalent to an Agentic upgrade of the
      traditional TCP/IP Socket interface.

   *  Compute-Network Integrated Load Optimization: Through mechanisms
      such as CATS (Compute-Aware Traffic Scheduling, or similar), the
      Gateway can select the optimal Agent from multiple Agents with the
      same capability to execute a task, based on comprehensive network
      and compute factors like bandwidth, latency, and load.  It is
      difficult for LLMs alone to dynamically perceive the network and
      compute load status of individual Agents.








Liu, et al.                Expires 6 May 2026                   [Page 5]

Internet-Draft         Agent Gateway Requirements          November 2025


2.2.  Agent Communication Access Control

   The Agent Gateway can implement fine-grained, context-based access
   control policies, ensuring that interactions only occur between
   authorized Agents and in permitted ways.  The execution of access
   control policies is based on context information across multiple
   dimensions:

   *  Identity-Based Access Control (IBAC): This is the most fundamental
      policy.  Policy rules can be defined as: "Agent A is allowed to
      communicate with Agent B," or "Agents belonging to 'Department X'
      are allowed to access Agents of 'Database Y'."  Before routing a
      message, the Gateway verifies whether the initiator ID and the
      target ID are within the allowed communication matrix.

   *  Capability-Based Access Control (CBAC): This policy introduces the
      dimensions of intent and capability on top of identity.  Policy
      rules can be more dynamic and semantic, for example: - Only Agents
      with the 'Financial Data Analysis' capability can access the 'Core
      Financial Database' Agent.  - An Agent requesting the 'Medical
      Diagnosis' capability must itself possess the capability tag for
      'Compliant Patient Data Handling' before it can call the
      corresponding diagnosis Agent.  This approach ensures that Agents
      are not only discoverable but are also used within the correct,
      authorized context.

   *  Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC): This is a more generalized
      model that can make dynamic decisions by combining identity,
      capability, and environmental attributes (such as time,
      communication frequency, data sensitivity tags of the request,
      etc.).  For example: "Only Agents with 'High-Level' security
      certification, coming from a secure internal network, and
      operating during working hours, are allowed to call system
      administration Agents."

   Gateway-based mechanism offers the following benefits:

   *  Principle of Least Privilege: Through fine-grained policy
      definition, it is ensured that each Agent only possesses the
      minimum communication privileges necessary to complete its task,
      significantly reducing the attack surface.

   *  Dynamic Policy Enforcement: The Gateway, as the policy enforcement
      point, can intercept and evaluate every communication attempt in
      real-time, ensuring policy consistency in a dynamic environment.






Liu, et al.                Expires 6 May 2026                   [Page 6]

Internet-Draft         Agent Gateway Requirements          November 2025


   *  Enhanced Ecosystem Security: By shifting access control from the
      application layer down to the communication layer, a security
      perimeter near the edge is provided for the entire AI Agent
      ecosystem.  This manages risks at the source, thereby enhancing
      the security of the Agent network and simultaneously reducing the
      overall cost of protection.

2.3.  Information Distribution among Agents

   This section describes the information distribution of AI agents from
   two dimensions.  One dimension is the number of communication
   participants, which is divided into Point-to-Point Communication (2
   AI agents) and Group Communication (3 or more AI agents), and the
   section is divided into two sub-sections based on this dimension.

   This section specifically discusses the content that Agent Gateways
   are involved in both cases.

2.3.1.  Point-to-Point Distribution

   In the Point-to-Point information distribution process, the typical
   processing performed by a gateway includes, but is not limited to:

   *  Application Layer Proxy (to facilitate monitoring/auditing of AI
      agent communication behavior, or to hide AI agent identity, etc.)

   *  Relay (to forward communication messages, making cross-domain
      communication easier, etc.)

   *  Traffic aggregation (to provide a tree-structured traffic
      regulation, improving communication efficiency).

2.3.2.  Pub/Sub

   One AI agent publishes the information to the gateway, and the
   gateway then distributes the information to the subscribing Agents
   based on their Subscribe status.  At the application layer, Pub/Sub
   is a common and efficient method of information distribution,
   especially suitable for large-scale group communication scenarios.

3.  Gap Analysis of Current Gateways

   Despite the existence of various forms of gateway devices and
   software in current networks, their primary design goals revolve
   around traditional network forwarding, network protocol translation,
   security isolation, and load balancing.  When faced with the unique
   requirements of AI Agent communication, these existing solutions
   exhibit significant shortcomings in both architecture and



Liu, et al.                Expires 6 May 2026                   [Page 7]

Internet-Draft         Agent Gateway Requirements          November 2025


   functionality.  This chapter will analyze why existing hardware and
   software gateways fail to meet the aforementioned Agent communication
   needs.

3.1.  Hardware form Gateways

   Common hardware gateway forms include, but are not limited to:
   network routers/switches, firewalls, dedicated protocol translation
   gateways, and broadband access equipment (BRAS/BNG).  These devices
   are typically deployed as dedicated hardware, focusing on processing
   at the Network and Transport layers.

   The core limitation of hardware gateways lies in their low processing
   layer.  They focus on network packets rather than Agent entities
   possessing identity and intent, and thus lack the necessary
   abstraction and computational power to handle high-level semantics
   and dynamic relationships.  Hardware gateways often utilize processor
   architectures, such as Network Processors (NPs), that are optimized
   for network-layer computation.  Consequently, they are difficult, if
   not impossible, to extend to support the high-level, semantic-based
   logical operations required for Agent communication.

3.2.  Software form Gateways

   Common software gateway forms include: API Gateways and Cloud Load
   Balancers.  These gateways are widely used in cloud-native
   environments and operate closer to the application layer, but their
   design paradigm remains tightly coupled with the architecture of
   services or API microservices.

   Software gateways are closer to meeting the requirements than
   hardware gateways, but their fundamental problem lies in the
   limitations of the fixed "service" paradigm.  They treat backends as
   relatively static services defined by APIs, rather than a dynamic
   collective of Agents possessing intent and collaborative
   capabilities.  Their security model and discovery mechanisms lack
   native support for the Agent's autonomy, dynamism, and capability
   semantics.

4.  Agent Gateway Implementation Considerations

   TBD.

5.  Security Considerations

   TBD





Liu, et al.                Expires 6 May 2026                   [Page 8]

Internet-Draft         Agent Gateway Requirements          November 2025


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

7.  Acknowledgements

   TBD

8.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

Authors' Addresses

   Bing Liu
   Huawei Technologies
   No. 156 Beiqing Road
   Beijing
   China
   Email: leo.liubing@huawei.com


   Nan Geng
   Huawei Technologies
   No. 156 Beiqing Road
   Beijing
   China
   Email: gengnan@huawei.com


   Xiaotong Shang
   Huawei Technologies
   No. 156 Beiqing Road
   Beijing
   China
   Email: shangxiaotong@huawei.com








Liu, et al.                Expires 6 May 2026                   [Page 9]

Internet-Draft         Agent Gateway Requirements          November 2025


   Qiangzhou Gao
   Huawei Technologies
   No. 156 Beiqing Road
   Beijing
   China
   Email: gaoqiangzhou@huawei.com


   Zhenbin Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Beijing
   China
   Email: robinli314@163.com






































Liu, et al.                Expires 6 May 2026                  [Page 10]
