67f84f72e8The posted SEP-1913 umbrella comment was updated to match the shipped structure: two extensions plus a schemes/ folder, with FIDES as one data-labelling scheme (ifc.fides.v1) rather than an extension/profile. Bring docs/intent-comment.md back in sync as the source of record and add the three stacked PR links (#2 base, #3 action-metadata, #4 FIDES scheme). Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
74 lines
No EOL
4.2 KiB
Markdown
74 lines
No EOL
4.2 KiB
Markdown
# Intent comments (posted)
|
|
|
|
Both comments below have been **posted**. Kept here as the source of record,
|
|
in sync with [sep-disposition.md](./sep-disposition.md).
|
|
|
|
- **SEP-1913** umbrella comment — [posted 2026-06-10](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/pull/1913#issuecomment-4675047154).
|
|
- **SEP-2061** coordination note — [posted 2026-06-10](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/pull/2061#issuecomment-4675049171);
|
|
@localden then **closed SEP-2061 on 2026-06-13** in favour of the
|
|
`action-metadata` extension.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## For SEP-1913
|
|
|
|
> **Intent: split this SEP and migrate to the Extensions Track**
|
|
> >
|
|
> A note on direction for everyone following this thread. When SEP-1913 was
|
|
> first framed, the **Extensions Track** (SEP-2133) and the `experimental-ext-*`
|
|
> incubation process didn't exist in their current form. They now do, and
|
|
> they're a better fit for this work than a single Standards Track SEP.
|
|
> >
|
|
> Two things pushed us here:
|
|
> >
|
|
> - @localden's review ask for a **narrower first cut** — the concern that a
|
|
> broad taxonomy with array-or-scalar polymorphism is hard to remove or change
|
|
> once it lands.
|
|
> - The Tool Annotations IG's
|
|
> [May 28 decision](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/discussions/2820)
|
|
> to pursue trust/privacy as an **experimental extension first**, gather
|
|
> adoption evidence, then ask core maintainers to absorb anything.
|
|
> >
|
|
> So the plan is to \*\*split this proposal into a few small,
|
|
> independently-shippable extensions\*\*, each with its own
|
|
> `io.modelcontextprotocol/…` identifier, reference implementation, and path to
|
|
> an Extensions Track SEP. Incubation is in
|
|
> [`experimental-ext-tool-annotations`](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/experimental-ext-tool-annotations).
|
|
> >
|
|
> It's now scaffolded as \*\*two extensions plus a `schemes/` folder\*\* of
|
|
> interchangeable data-labelling approaches, shipped as a stacked set of PRs:
|
|
> >
|
|
> - [#2](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/experimental-ext-tool-annotations/pull/2) — repo scaffolding + the `trust-annotations` extension (the base).
|
|
> - [#3](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/experimental-ext-tool-annotations/pull/3) — the `action-metadata` extension.
|
|
> - [#4](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/experimental-ext-tool-annotations/pull/4) — FIDES as a data-labelling \*\*scheme\*\* under `schemes/`.
|
|
> >
|
|
> | Extension | Scope |
|
|
> |---|---|
|
|
> | `trust-annotations` | The narrow data-classification taxonomy (`sensitive`, `untrusted`) + an open-ended `evidenceRef` pointer for richer, out-of-band evidence. |
|
|
> | `action-metadata` | Tool I/O + outcome contract (folds in @rreichel3's SEP-2061). |
|
|
> >
|
|
> \*\*Data-labelling schemes (the `evidenceRef` slot).\*\* Richer evidence models
|
|
> are \*not\* extensions and \*not\* a wire root. They live in `schemes/` as
|
|
> interchangeable fillers of the `trust-annotations` `evidenceRef` slot, each
|
|
> selected by an `evidenceRef.type` value, so a deployment can adopt one, several,
|
|
> or none without changing the extension. FIDES information-flow control
|
|
> ([arXiv:2505.23643](https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23643)) is the first worked scheme
|
|
> (`ifc.fides.v1`) — the public/private-repo confidentiality case, with
|
|
> github-mcp-server as an emitter example. The folder is built to hold the range of
|
|
> other models raised in review (coarse data classification, design-pattern
|
|
> controls, capability tokens, cosigning, sequence-shape, attestation).
|
|
> >
|
|
> Deliberately removed: `maliciousActivityHint` (the structural concerns raised
|
|
> here are unresolved) and session-level propagation rules.
|
|
> >
|
|
> This follows the same Standards-Track → Extensions-Track refactor pattern as
|
|
> SEP-2127 (#2893). This PR is now the `trust-annotations` base of the stack; the
|
|
> `action-metadata` extension and the `schemes/` folder are stacked on it.
|
|
> Everything is still in the incubation phase, so naming, design, and the choice of
|
|
> what to put forward as an extension are all open for discussion in the IG.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## For SEP-2061 (coordination note)
|
|
|
|
> @rreichel3 — splitting this out into an independent extension as discussed: https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/pull/1913#issuecomment-4675047154 |