2aea5dc6beCarve the schema-bearing parts of SEP-1913 into three independent experimental extensions, per @localden's "narrower first cut" ask and the Tool Annotations IG's 2026-05-28 extension-first decision: - io.modelcontextprotocol/trust-annotations (headline): narrow data-classification taxonomy (sensitive, untrusted) + open-ended evidenceRef pointer. - io.modelcontextprotocol/action-metadata: carries forward SEP-2061 (inputMetadata/returnMetadata/outcomes + requiresReview). - io.modelcontextprotocol/ifc-fides: FIDES information-flow control as a profile of evidenceRef, not a wire root. Adds repo meta (README, MAINTAINERS, CONTRIBUTING, LICENSE) and docs (sep-disposition, intent-comment, decisions, open-questions, trust-model, related-work). FIDES demoted to a profile; DataClass and requiresReview rehomed; maliciousActivityHint and propagation parked on the SEP-1913 umbrella. Citations index on public sources only. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
69 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
69 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
# Intent comment (draft, pre-post review)
|
|
|
|
This is the comment we plan to post on
|
|
[SEP-1913](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/pull/1913),
|
|
with an abbreviated pointer version for
|
|
[SEP-2061](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/pull/2061).
|
|
Kept here so it can be reviewed and stays in sync with
|
|
[sep-disposition.md](./sep-disposition.md).
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 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 **carve 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):
|
|
>
|
|
> | 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). |
|
|
> | `ifc-fides` | Information-flow control ([arXiv:2505.23643](https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23643)) as **one profile** of `evidenceRef`, not a wire root — the public/private-repo confidentiality case, with github-mcp-server as emitter candidate. |
|
|
>
|
|
> Deliberately **not** in the initial carve: `maliciousActivityHint` (the
|
|
> structural concerns raised here are unresolved) and session-level propagation
|
|
> rules. Those stay parked on this umbrella thread.
|
|
>
|
|
> This follows the same Standards-Track → Extensions-Track refactor pattern as
|
|
> SEP-2127 (#2893). This PR stays open as the umbrella / problem-framing thread;
|
|
> the schema-bearing pieces move out. Feedback on the carve is very welcome —
|
|
> particularly on whether any parked item deserves its own extension sooner.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## For SEP-2061 (abbreviated pointer)
|
|
|
|
> Cross-linking for visibility: the Tool Annotations IG is carving the trust /
|
|
> privacy / action-metadata work into small experimental extensions in
|
|
> [`experimental-ext-tool-annotations`](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/experimental-ext-tool-annotations)
|
|
> (background: SEP-1913 comment
|
|
> [here](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/pull/1913),
|
|
> and the [May 28 IG decision](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/discussions/2820)).
|
|
>
|
|
> This proposal maps directly onto the
|
|
> [`action-metadata`](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/experimental-ext-tool-annotations/blob/main/specification/draft/action-metadata.mdx)
|
|
> extension — `inputMetadata` / `returnMetadata` / outcomes, plus a
|
|
> `requiresReview` signal we pulled out of the trust taxonomy because it's a
|
|
> workflow concern, not a data property. The intent is to carry SEP-2061 forward
|
|
> as that extension rather than run a parallel proposal. @rreichel3 — flagging
|
|
> so we co-own it rather than diverge; happy to keep this thread as the home for
|
|
> the field semantics.
|