70ec91c5f7Replace 'carve'/'headline' throughout; reframe the front-facing docs (README, spec drafts, related-work) to describe what the repo contains and link to it rather than narrate the process. Process framing stays in the decision log and the intent-comment/sep-disposition planning docs. Live SEP-1913/SEP-2061 comments updated to match. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
61 lines
No EOL
3.1 KiB
Markdown
61 lines
No EOL
3.1 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 \*\*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).
|
|
> >
|
|
> Kicking off with a few draft extensions in the tool annotations repo — not
|
|
> sure yet whether they'd each need separate repos eventually, or whether
|
|
> grouping them in one is fine. That's part of what incubation is for.
|
|
> >
|
|
> | 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 an emitter example. |
|
|
> >
|
|
> 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 will eventually pivot to the `trust-annotations`
|
|
> piece itself, with the other schema-bearing pieces moving out into their own
|
|
> extensions. 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 |