AI URI Scheme – Internet-Draft

Posted by enz 2 days ago

Counter21Comment12OpenOriginal

Comments

Comment by Igrom 11 hours ago

Impressive, not just a new URI scheme, but also a brand-new Internet protocol, all in one concise paper.

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....

Comment by eob 11 hours ago

I build coding agents for a living, and I'm struggling to map this onto the set of things I do at work.

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&currency=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?

Comment by renerick 10 hours ago

This document defines a scheme for "AI-adressable" resources without much care about definition of "AI-addressesable" or even the properties of such resources, that require a dedicated protocol.

I get very strong "E = mc^2 + AI" vibes from it, just shoehorning the coveted letters everywhere

Comment by lgrapenthin 11 hours ago

There is a newer version here https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sogomonian-aiip-archi...

I don't understand what problem this is trying to solve though.

Comment by wongarsu 11 hours ago

This feels like half the document is missing. What does this HTTPS metadata actually look like? What do the payloads look like? Section 3 states "Authorization, policy enforcement, and result verification are defined by AIIP" but this is the AIIP specification and doesn't define any of them. Authorization and policy enforcement are somehow supposed to be big selling points that are solved in some amazing way, but are not specified at all.

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)

Comment by progval 10 hours ago

That's the protocol specification, not the URI scheme. And the packet diagram is amazing because it's missing every odd bit and "SigLen (16)" is twice the width it should be. I guess they vibecoded it.

Comment by ivanjermakov 11 hours ago

> enabling autonomous systems and robots to connect

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.

Comment by dalemhurley 11 hours ago

Is this a new protocol for us to put our remote MCP and remote resources behind?

Comment by paulddraper 11 hours ago

100 points to anyone who can explain this

Comment by progval 11 hours ago

Author seems to have no Internet presence and claims to be employed by the "Artificial Intelligence Internet Foundation". Which either doesn't have a website or is this placeholder: https://www.aifoundation.com/

So it seems to be a random person cosplaying as a spec author. Or possibly trying to have something impressive on their résumé.

Comment by alwa 11 hours ago

Or an upstart AI firm trying to puff up a forthcoming marketing piece, gushing about how they’ve made Internet backbone engineers obsolete.

“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!”

Comment by mikehostetler 10 hours ago

This doesn't look like it was written by a human

AGI?