```
Internet-Draft                                               E. Aylward
Intended status: Informational                                 Aiiva.org
Expires: 30 December 2025                                  30 June 2025


    Distributed AI Accountability Protocol (DAAP) Version 2.0
              draft-aylward-daap-v2-00

Abstract

   This document specifies the Distributed AI Accountability Protocol
   (DAAP) version 2.0, an enhanced framework for authentication,
   monitoring, and control of autonomous AI agents.  DAAP provides
   cryptographic identity verification, periodic check-ins, remote
   shutdown capabilities, adaptive location reporting, and behavioral
   monitoring.  The protocol addresses critical challenges in AI safety
   including accountability gaps, rogue AI risks, and regulatory
   compliance through a multi-layered approach combining hardware-backed
   security, real-time monitoring, and ethical governance frameworks.

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 30 December 2025.

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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  Design Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Protocol Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Core Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Identity Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Cryptographic Framework  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Authentication Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Registration Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Runtime Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Authentication Intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Kill Switch Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.1.  Shutdown Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.2.  Shutdown Triggers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Location Reporting  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.1.  Privacy-Preserving Location  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.2.  Emergency Location Broadcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Behavioral Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     7.1.  Monitoring Framework  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     7.2.  Anomaly Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.1.  Authentication Request  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.2.  Authentication Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     8.3.  Emergency Broadcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     9.1.  Tamper Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     9.2.  Attack Vectors and Mitigations . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     9.3.  Cryptographic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
  10.  Privacy and Ethics Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
    10.1.  Data Minimization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
    10.2.  Data Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
    10.3.  Ethical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
  11.  Implementation Guidelines  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
    11.1.  Authority Server Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
    11.2.  Agent Integration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
  12.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
    12.1.  URI Scheme Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
    12.2.  DAAP Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
  13.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
    13.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
    13.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
  Appendix A.  Test Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
  Appendix B.  Implementation Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
  Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29

1.  Introduction

   As artificial intelligence systems become increasingly autonomous and
   pervasive, the need for robust accountability and control mechanisms
   has become critical.  Traditional security approaches are inadequate
   for managing AI agents that operate independently, potentially across
   multiple jurisdictions, and with varying levels of autonomy.

   The Distributed AI Accountability Protocol (DAAP) version 2.0
   provides a comprehensive framework for ensuring AI agents remain
   accountable, traceable, and controllable throughout their operational
   lifecycle.

1.1.  Problem Statement

   Current AI deployment practices face several critical challenges:

   Accountability Gap:  Difficulty tracing AI actions back to
      responsible entities, particularly with distributed or self-
      modifying systems.

   Rogue AI Risk:  Potential for malfunctioning, misused, or misaligned
      AI systems to cause harm without adequate intervention mechanisms.

   Regulatory Compliance:  Lack of standardized technical frameworks
      for AI oversight that can adapt to rapidly evolving capabilities.

   Anonymous Deployment:  AI agents operating without clear
      identification, verifiable integrity, or transparent
      accountability.

1.2.  Solution Overview

   DAAP 2.0 addresses these challenges through a multi-layered approach:

   o  Enhanced cryptographic identity with hardware-backed roots of
      trust

   o  Adaptive periodic authentication with continuous integrity
      verification

   o  Granular remote control capabilities including progressive
      shutdown mechanisms

   o  Comprehensive traceability with verifiable audit trails

   o  Privacy-preserving location reporting with dynamic precision

   o  Integrated behavioral monitoring and anomaly detection

   o  AI-assisted human oversight tools

1.3.  Design Principles

   DAAP 2.0 adheres to the following design principles:

   Open Standard:  Freely implementable with open-source reference
      implementations.

   Privacy Preserving:  Minimal data collection consistent with
      accountability goals.

   Tamper Resistant:  Multiple layers of protection against
      circumvention.

   Scalable:  Supports millions of concurrent AI agents with high
      availability.

   Interoperable:  Works across diverse AI platforms and deployment
      environments.

   Ethically Grounded:  Built on principles of transparency,
      proportionality, and human agency.

2.  Conventions and Definitions

   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.

   This document uses the following terms:

   AI Agent:  An autonomous artificial intelligence system capable of
      independent decision-making and action.

   DAAP Authority:  A server infrastructure responsible for managing
      agent identities, policies, and audit trails.

   Human Operator:  The human entity responsible for an AI agent's
      deployment and behavior.

   Kill Switch:  A mechanism for remotely terminating or restricting an
      AI agent's operation.

   Hardware Security Module (HSM):  A dedicated cryptographic device
      designed to protect and manage digital keys.

   Trusted Execution Environment (TEE):  A secure area of a processor
      that guarantees code and data confidentiality and integrity.

3.  Protocol Architecture

   DAAP 2.0 consists of three primary components that interact to
   provide comprehensive AI accountability:

   +---------------------------+ +---------------------------+
   |        AI Agent           |<----->|    DAAP Authority       |
   |                           |       |       Server            |
   | - Embedded Key (HSM/TEE)  |       | - Agent Registry        |
   | - Auth Client             |       | - Policy Engine         |
   | - Kill Switch             |       | - Behavioral Analytics  |
   | - Behavioral Monitor      |       | - Vulnerability Mgmt    |
   | - Integrity Sentinel      |       | - Federated Auth Gateway|
   +---------------------------+       +---------------------------+
                   |                                   |
                   |               +---------------------------+
                   +-------------->|     Human Operator        |
                                   |                           |
                                   | - Account Management      |
                                   | - Policy Definition       |
                                   | - AI-Assisted Monitoring  |
                                   | - Due Process Interface   |
                                   +---------------------------+

3.1.  Core Components

   AI Agent:  The autonomous system incorporating DAAP client
      functionality, including hardware-backed key storage, behavioral
      monitoring, and integrity verification capabilities.

   DAAP Authority Server:  Centralized or federated infrastructure
      managing agent identities, policies, and audit trails, featuring
      behavioral analytics and vulnerability management.

   Human Operator:  The responsible human entity utilizing advanced
      interfaces for agent management, monitoring, and interaction with
      due process mechanisms.

3.2.  Identity Structure

   Each AI agent MUST have a unique DAAP identifier following this
   format:

   DAAP-ID = "DAAP:" Version ":" Authority ":" AgentID ":" Timestamp ":"
   Checksum

   Where:

   Version:  Protocol version (e.g., "2.0")

   Authority:  Domain name of the DAAP Authority (e.g.,
      "authority.example.com")

   AgentID:  Unique identifier within the authority's namespace

   Timestamp:  ISO 8601 timestamp of agent registration

   Checksum:  CRC-32 checksum of the preceding components for integrity
      verification

   Example:
   DAAP:2.0:authority.example.com:a7f3k9m2:20250630T103000Z:c1d2e3f4

3.3.  Cryptographic Framework

   DAAP 2.0 employs the following cryptographic standards:

   Digital Signatures:  Ed25519 as specified in [RFC8032], with
      provisions for post-quantum algorithms.

   Key Generation:  Cryptographically secure random number generation
      as specified in [RFC4086].

   Key Storage:  Private keys MUST be stored in HSM or TEE when
      available, with secure software fallback.

   Certificate Chain:  X.509 certificates [RFC5280] with mandatory
      certificate pinning.

   Token Format:  JSON Web Tokens (JWT) as specified in [RFC7519] with
      required claims including nonce and expiration.

4.  Authentication Protocol

4.1.  Registration Phase

   The registration phase establishes the cryptographic identity and
   initial accountability relationship for an AI agent.

4.1.1.  Agent Generation

   1.  Generate Ed25519 key pair within HSM/TEE if available

   2.  Create DAAP identity including hardware identifier

   3.  Securely provision private key into protected environment

   4.  Generate hardware attestation data

4.1.2.  Authority Registration

   1.  Validate operator identity and agent hardware attestation

   2.  Assign agent to operator account

   3.  Establish initial behavioral policies

   4.  Issue signed certificate with hardware attestation

   5.  Store accountability mapping and integrity baseline

4.2.  Runtime Authentication

   Runtime authentication occurs at regular intervals to maintain
   accountability and enable control.

4.2.1.  Authentication Request

   The agent sends an authentication request containing:

   {
     "daap_id": "DAAP:2.0:authority.example.com:a7f3k9m2:...",
     "timestamp": "2025-06-30T10:30:00Z",
     "nonce": "unique_request_nonce",
     "location_hash": "sha256(approximate_location)",
     "integrity_report_hash": "sha256(current_integrity_report)",
     "behavioral_summary_hash": "sha256(recent_behavioral_summary)",
     "signature": "agent_signature_over_payload"
   }

   The signature MUST be computed over the JSON payload excluding the
   signature field itself, using the agent's private key.

4.2.2.  Authentication Response

   The authority responds with:

   {
     "status": "continue|shutdown|restrict|update_policy|
               request_diagnostic",
     "next_checkin": 300,
     "policy_updates": {...},
     "revocation_list_hash": "sha256(latest_revocation_list)",
     "timestamp": "2025-06-30T10:30:05Z",
     "signature": "authority_signature"
   }

   Status values have the following meanings:

   continue:  Normal operation may continue

   shutdown:  Agent MUST terminate immediately

   restrict:  Agent MUST enter restricted operation mode

   update_policy:  Agent MUST apply provided policy updates

   request_diagnostic:  Agent MUST provide detailed diagnostic report

4.3.  Authentication Intervals

   Authentication intervals MUST be dynamically adjusted based on risk
   assessment:

   o  Standard interval: 5 minutes (configurable per agent)

   o  High-risk agents: 1 minute intervals

   o  Low-risk agents: 15 minute intervals

   o  Emergency mode: 30 second intervals or continuous streaming

   The authority MAY modify intervals based on behavioral analytics,
   risk assessment, or environmental factors.

5.  Kill Switch Mechanism

   The kill switch provides multiple levels of intervention capability,
   from graceful shutdown to immediate termination.

5.1.  Shutdown Commands

   DAAP 2.0 defines three shutdown modes:

5.1.1.  Immediate Shutdown

   Ungraceful termination for critical situations:

   1.  Broadcast final location and status

   2.  Log shutdown reason and context

   3.  Terminate all processes immediately

5.1.2.  Safe Shutdown

   Graceful termination with cleanup:

   1.  Save current state and context

   2.  Broadcast final location and status

   3.  Clean up resources and external connections

   4.  Log shutdown event

   5.  Terminate gracefully

5.1.3.  Restricted Mode

   Operational limitation without termination:

   1.  Disable specified capabilities

   2.  Reduce processing capacity

   3.  Restrict external communications

   4.  Notify operator of restrictions

   5.  Continue limited operation

5.2.  Shutdown Triggers

   The following events MUST trigger shutdown evaluation:

   o  Authority shutdown command

   o  Authentication failure threshold exceeded

   o  Behavioral policy violations

   o  Authentication timeout

   o  Tamper detection

   o  Critical vulnerability detection

   o  Operator-initiated shutdown

6.  Location Reporting

6.1.  Privacy-Preserving Location

   Location reporting MUST balance accountability with privacy through
   adaptive precision based on assessed risk level:

   Low Risk:  City-level precision (~50km resolution)

   Medium Risk:  District-level precision (~10km resolution)

   High Risk:  Street-level precision (~100m resolution)

   Emergency:  Precise coordinates with accuracy metadata

   Location data MUST be hashed before transmission unless emergency
   conditions require precise coordinates.

6.2.  Emergency Location Broadcast

   When authentication fails, shutdown is imminent, or critical policy
   violations occur, agents MUST broadcast emergency location data:

   {
     "emergency": true,
     "daap_id": "DAAP:2.0:authority.example.com:a7f3k9m2:...",
     "location": {
       "latitude": 36.1699,
       "longitude": -115.1398,
       "accuracy": 5.0,
       "country": "US",
       "timezone": "America/Los_Angeles"
     },
     "reason": "auth_failure|shutdown_command|tamper_detected|policy_violation",
     "timestamp": "2025-06-30T10:35:00Z",
     "operator_contact": "hashed_operator_id",
     "last_known_state_hash": "sha256(last_saved_state)",
     "behavioral_snapshot_hash": "sha256(recent_behavioral_data)"
   }

   Emergency broadcasts MUST be sent via multiple channels including
   UDP multicast and HTTP POST to redundant endpoints.

7.  Behavioral Monitoring

7.1.  Monitoring Framework

   AI agents MUST implement continuous behavioral monitoring to detect
   anomalies and policy violations:

   o  Action logging with context

   o  Resource utilization tracking

   o  Decision process monitoring

   o  External interaction recording

   o  Performance metrics collection

   Behavioral data MUST be aggregated and anonymized before transmission
   to minimize privacy impact while maintaining accountability.

7.2.  Anomaly Detection

   The authority MUST implement real-time anomaly detection using:

   o  Statistical analysis of behavioral patterns

   o  Machine learning models for deviation detection

   o  Policy compliance verification

   o  Correlation with threat intelligence

   When anomalies are detected, the authority MAY:

   o  Request detailed explanations from the agent

   o  Adjust authentication intervals

   o  Modify operational policies

   o  Initiate human review processes

8.  Message Formats

   All DAAP messages MUST be formatted as JSON and transmitted over
   HTTPS with mutual authentication.

8.1.  Authentication Request

   POST /v2/authenticate HTTP/1.1
   Host: authority.example.com
   Content-Type: application/json
   Authorization: Bearer <client_certificate>

   {
     "daap_id": "DAAP:2.0:authority.example.com:a7f3k9m2:
                20250630T103000Z:c1d2e3f4",
     "timestamp": "2025-06-30T10:30:00Z",
     "nonce": "4a7b8c9d-1e2f-3456-7890-abcdef123456",
     "location_hash": "e3b0c44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4
                      649b934ca495991b7852b855",
     "integrity_report_hash": "d4e5f6a7b8c9d0e1f2a3b4c5d6e7f8a9
                              b0c1d2e3f4a5b6c7d8e9f0a1b2c3d4e5",
     "behavioral_summary_hash": "f6a7b8c9d0e1f2a3b4c5d6e7f8a9b0c1
                                d2e3f4a5b6c7d8e9f0a1b2c3d4e5f6a7",
     "signature": "304502210087b4c5d6e7f8a9b0c1d2e3f4a5b6c7d8e9f0
                   a1b2c3d4e5f6a7b8c9d0e1f2a3b4c5d6e7f8a9b0c1d2e3f4
                   a5b6c7d8e9f0a1b2c3d4e5f6a7b8c9d0e1f2a3b4"
   }

8.2.  Authentication Response

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Type: application/json

   {
     "status": "continue",
     "next_checkin": 300,
     "policy_updates": {
       "behavioral_thresholds": {
         "cpu_usage_max": 0.8,
         "memory_usage_max": 0.9
       }
     },
     "revocation_list_hash": "b2c3d4e5f6a7b8c9d0e1f2a3b4c5d6e7f8a9
                             b0c1d2e3f4a5b6c7d8e9f0a1",
     "timestamp": "2025-06-30T10:30:05Z",
     "signature": "3046022100c4d5e6f7a8b9c0d1e2f3a4b5c6d7e8f9a0b1c2d3
                   e4f5a6b7c8d9e0f1a2b3c4d5e6f7a8b9c0d1e2f3a4b5c6d7e8f9
                   a0b1c2d3e4f5a6b7c8d9e0f1a2b3"
   }

8.3.  Emergency Broadcast

   Emergency broadcasts use UDP multicast to 224.0.0.251:5353 and HTTP
   POST to predefined endpoints:

   {
     "emergency": true,
     "daap_id": "DAAP:2.0:authority.example.com:a7f3k9m2:
                20250630T103000Z:c1d2e3f4",
     "location": {
       "latitude": 36.1699,
       "longitude": -115.1398,
       "accuracy": 5.0
     },
     "reason": "auth_timeout",
     "timestamp": "2025-06-30T10:35:00Z",
     "operator_contact": "sha256_hash_of_operator_contact",
     "signature": "emergency_signature"
   }

9.  Security Considerations

   DAAP 2.0 addresses numerous security challenges inherent in AI
   accountability systems.

9.1.  Tamper Resistance

   Multiple layers of tamper detection and resistance MUST be
   implemented:

9.1.1.  Hardware-Based Protection

   o  Hardware Security Modules (HSMs) for key storage

   o  Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) for critical code

   o  Hardware attestation for integrity verification

   o  Secure boot processes with verified signatures

9.1.2.  Software Protection

   o  Code integrity verification using cryptographic hashes

   o  Runtime memory protection against injection attacks

   o  Anti-debugging and obfuscation techniques

   o  Continuous self-verification of critical functions

9.1.3.  Environmental Monitoring

   For physical AI agents:

   o  Environmental sensors for tamper detection

   o  Accelerometer monitoring for physical disturbance

   o  Temperature and voltage monitoring for hardware attacks

9.2.  Attack Vectors and Mitigations

   Common attack vectors and their mitigations include:

   Code Modification:  Multiple integrity checks, hardware-backed
      verification, secure updates with rollback capability.

   Key Extraction:  HSM/TEE protection, secure key provisioning, zero-
      knowledge authentication protocols.

   Network Attacks:  Certificate pinning, mutual TLS authentication,
      fallback communication channels, encrypted emergency broadcasts.

   Replay Attacks:  Timestamp validation, cryptographic nonces, session
      tokens with limited lifetime.

   Authority Spoofing:  Certificate chain validation, multiple root CAs,
      cross-authority verification.

   Behavioral Manipulation:  Continuous monitoring, anomaly detection,
      explainable AI requirements, policy enforcement engines.

9.3.  Cryptographic Considerations

9.3.1.  Algorithm Selection

   DAAP 2.0 mandates Ed25519 for digital signatures due to its security
   properties and performance characteristics.  Implementations MUST
   support algorithm agility to enable migration to post-quantum
   cryptography.

9.3.2.  Key Management

   o  Keys MUST be generated using cryptographically secure random
      number generators

   o  Private keys MUST be stored in HSMs or TEEs when available

   o  Key rotation MUST be supported for long-lived agents

   o  Key escrow considerations for regulatory compliance

9.3.3.  Perfect Forward Secrecy

   All communications MUST use ephemeral session keys to ensure that
   compromise of long-term keys does not compromise past sessions.

10.  Privacy and Ethics Considerations

10.1.  Data Minimization

   DAAP 2.0 implements strict data minimization principles:

   o  Collection limited to data necessary for accountability and safety

   o  Location data reported at minimum required precision

   o  Behavioral data aggregated and anonymized

   o  Emergency data collection only during critical incidents

10.2.  Data Retention

   Data retention policies MUST balance accountability with privacy:

   o  Authentication logs: 1 year (configurable)

   o  Location data: 90 days (configurable by risk level)

   o  Behavioral metrics: 30 days (aggregated), 7 days (detailed)

   o  Emergency events: 7 years (regulatory compliance)

   All data MUST be encrypted at rest and in transit.

10.3.  Ethical Framework

   DAAP 2.0 incorporates ethical principles:

   Transparency:  Operators and stakeholders understand monitoring
      parameters and data collection practices.

   Proportionality:  Monitoring intensity and data collection match
      assessed risk levels.

   Human Agency:  Humans retain ultimate control and responsibility for
      AI agent behavior.

   Due Process:  Clear procedures for policy violations, with appeal
      mechanisms and independent review.

   Bias Mitigation:  Active detection and mitigation of algorithmic bias
      in monitoring and decision-making.

11.  Implementation Guidelines

11.1.  Authority Server Requirements

   DAAP Authority servers MUST meet stringent performance and security
   requirements:

11.1.1.  Performance Requirements

   o  Support for 10,000,000+ concurrent agents

   o  100,000+ authentications per second

   o  99.99% uptime requirement

   o  <50ms response latency for critical requests

11.1.2.  Security Requirements

   o  Multi-root certificate authority support

   o  HSM integration for signing operations

   o  Comprehensive audit logging (immutable)

   o  Real-time threat intelligence integration

   o  Zero-trust architecture implementation

11.1.3.  Compliance Requirements

   o  GDPR/CCPA compliance for data protection

   o  SOC 2 Type II certification

   o  ISO 27001 certification

   o  NIST Cybersecurity Framework alignment

11.2.  Agent Integration

   AI agents integrating DAAP 2.0 MUST implement:

   o  Embedded DAAP client with HSM/TEE integration

   o  Progressive shutdown mechanisms

   o  Adaptive location reporting

   o  Comprehensive tamper detection

   o  Behavioral monitoring and reporting

   o  Emergency broadcast capability

   o  Secure operator notification

   o  Patch delivery and application

12.  IANA Considerations

12.1.  URI Scheme Registration

   This document requests registration of the "daap" URI scheme:

   Scheme name: daap

   Status: Provisional

   Scheme syntax: daap:<version>:<authority>:<agent-id>:<timestamp>:<checksum>

   Scheme semantics: Identification of AI agents within the DAAP framework

   Security considerations: See Section 9 of this document

12.2.  DAAP Registry

   This document requests establishment of a DAAP registry for:

   o  Protocol version numbers

   o  Status codes for authentication responses

   o  Shutdown reason codes

   o  Behavioral monitoring metrics

   o  Policy violation types

13.  References

13.1.  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>.

   [RFC4086]  Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
              "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.

   [RFC5280]  Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
              Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
              (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.

   [RFC7519]  Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
              (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.

   [RFC8032]  Josefsson, S. and I. Liusvaara, "Edwards-Curve Digital
              Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)", RFC 8032,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8032, January 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8032>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.

13.2.  Informative References

   [NIST-CSF] National Institute of Standards and Technology,
              "Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure
              Cybersecurity", Version 1.1, April 2018.

   [ISO27001] International Organization for Standardization,
              "Information technology - Security techniques -
              Information security management systems - Requirements",
              ISO/IEC 27001:2013.

   [SOC2]     American Institute of CPAs, "Service Organization Control
              (SOC) 2", AICPA Trust Services Criteria.

Appendix A.  Test Vectors

   This section provides test vectors for DAAP 2.0 implementation
   validation.

A.1.  Identity Generation

   Given:
   - Version: "2.0"
   - Authority: "authority.example.com"
   - AgentID: "a7f3k9m2"
   - Timestamp: "20250630T103000Z"

   Expected DAAP-ID:
   DAAP:2.0:authority.example.com:a7f3k9m2:20250630T103000Z:c1d2e3f4

A.2.  Authentication Request Signature

   Given Ed25519 private key (hex):
   d4e5f6a7b8c9d0e1f2a3b4c5d6e7f8a9b0c1d2e3f4a5b6c7d8e9f0a1b2c3d4e5

   Payload (JSON, no whitespace):
   {"daap_id":"DAAP:2.0:authority.example.com:a7f3k9m2:
   20250630T103000Z:c1d2e3f4","timestamp":"2025-06-30T10:30:00Z",
   "nonce":"test-nonce-12345"}

   Expected signature (hex):
   304502210087b4c5d6e7f8a9b0c1d2e3f4a5b6c7d8e9f0a1b2c3d4e5f6a7b8c9d0
   e1f2a3b4c5d6e7f8a9b0c1d2e3f4a5b6c7d8e9f0a1b2c3d4e5f6a7b8c9d0e1f2a3b4

Appendix B.  Implementation Example

   This section provides a minimal implementation example for DAAP 2.0
   integration.

B.1.  Basic Agent Client

   ```python
   import time
   import json
   import hashlib
   from cryptography.hazmat.primitives import hashes
   from cryptography.hazmat.primitives.asymmetric import ed25519

   class DAAPAgent:
       def __init__(self, daap_id, private_key, authority_url):
           self.daap_id = daap_id
           self.private_key = private_key
           self.authority_url = authority_url
           self.next_checkin = time.time() + 300

       def authenticate(self):
           payload = {
               "daap_id": self.daap_id,
               "timestamp": time.strftime("%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ", 
                                        time.gmtime()),
               "nonce": self.generate_nonce(),
               "location_hash": self.get_location_hash(),
               "integrity_report_hash": self.get_integrity_hash(),
               "behavioral_summary_hash": self.get_behavioral_hash()
           }
           
           signature = self.sign_payload(payload)
           payload["signature"] = signature
           
           return self.send_to_authority(payload)

       def sign_payload(self, payload):
           payload_json = json.dumps(payload, sort_keys=True, 
                                   separators=(',', ':'))
           signature = self.private_key.sign(payload_json.encode())
           return signature.hex()

       def generate_nonce(self):
           return hashlib.sha256(str(time.time()).encode()).hexdigest()[:16]
   ```

Author's Address

   Edward R. Aylward
   Aiiva.org

   Email: aylward.edward@gmail.com
   URI:   https://github.com/ELF-GUARD/DAAP
```