Problem Space Analysis of AI Agent Protocols in IETF

3.1. A2A Coverage

Existing A2A protocol (as analyzed from available open source schema definitions [A2A-spec]) provides a foundational discovery mechanism centered on the "Agent Card" construct, which encapsulates critical metadata foragent identification and interaction:¶

** Core Metadata: Agents advertise identity (name, version, provider), capabilities, skills, authentication requirements, input/output modes, and communication interfaces (URLs, protocol bindings) via the Agent Card.¶

** Static Retrieval: Protocols support direct retrieval of Agent Card metadata via dedicated requests (e.g., Get Agent Card Request), enabling clients to obtain necessary information to initiate communication.¶

** Tenant Differentiation: A "tenant" field supports basic multi-tenancy, allowing agents to serve multiple isolated groups within a single administrative domain.¶

** Extension Points: Agent Extension allows agents to declare custom protocol extensions, enabling domain-specific discovery metadata.¶

3.2. MCP Coverage

MCP is a typical A2T protocol. Since MCP connects tools to the agent, the developer will have to know beforehand the tools urls and thus it is done in a manual local configs manner. The usual approch is to provide resource links as a primary application entry point. Existing MCP protocol (as analyzed from available open source schema definitions [MCP-spec]).¶

3.3. Gaps and Potential Work Space in Open Internet

The current discovery mechanisms are insufficient for open Internet deployments, where agents and clients operate across administrative domains, lack pre-configured knowledge of each other, and require dynamic, secure discovery. Current A2A protocol allow three types of extension on discovery mechanisms. A Well-known URI labelled by server domain, registry or catalog based approach, and direct configuration. Based on this, in open Internet, the following should be considered:¶

** Dynamic Directory Services: Open Internet scenarios require agents to be discoverable via standardized directory services or registries. The current model relies on clients having prior knowledge of an agent's URL to retrieve its Agent Card, preventing "directory-based discovery" of unknown agents.¶

** Cross-Domain Addressing: There is no standardized mechanism for resolving agent identifiers to network locations across domains.¶

** Domain Identification and Trust: Protocols lack standardized "domain" identifiers (e.g., organizational ID, network domain) and mechanisms to express cross-domain trust relationships. Clients cannot easily determine an agent's domain or whether their local domain trusts it.¶

** Dynamic Metadata Synchronization: Agent Card updates (e.g.,capability changes, endpoint updates) are not propagated across domains. Cross-domain clients may rely on stale metadata, leading to failed interactions.¶

4.1. A2A Coverage

Existing A2A protocol creates a "TASK" object struct, which serves as the core unit of session management, providing a robust foundation for tracking interaction lifecycles between AI agents:¶

** Task Object: A Task aggregates all session-related state, including a unique id (task_ID), status (the current status of a Task, including state and a message), history (message log), artifacts (task outputs),and contextId (Unique identifier for the contextual collection of interactions).¶

** Interaction State Machine: A comprehensive state machine(SUBMITTED, WORKING, COMPLETED, FAILED, CANCELED,INPUT_REQUIRED, AUTH_REQUIRED, REJECTED) covers key interaction scenarios, including user input prompts and authentication interruptions.¶

** Synchronous/Asynchronous/Streaming Modes: Protocol supports synchronous requests, asynchronous requests (via "pushNotifications"), and streaming responses for incremental results.¶

4.2. MCP Coverage

MCP is stateful per connection and stateless across connections. It does not support session resumption and native session timeouts, applicaitons can retry and that it implementaiton specific.¶

4.3. Gaps and Potential Work Space in Open Internet

While the core session model is relatively robust, open Internet deployments impose additional requirements for reliability, and interoperability across heterogeneous implementations:¶

** Session Timeout and Expiration: A2A Protocol lacks standardized session timeout, idle timeout, and expiration mechanisms. Servers cannot automatically clean up stale sessions, leading to resource leaks, and clients cannot reliably determine if a session is still valid.¶

** Context Propagation Rules: While contextId supports cross-task context, A2A protocol does not standardize how context is inherited (e.g., which fields are carried over to new tasks), truncated (e.g., handling long message histories), or merged (e.g., combining contexts from multiple agents). This leads to inconsistent behavior across implementations.¶

** Session Recovery and Reconnection: The protocol lacks detailed mechanisms to recover sessions after network disconnections. Clients cannot resume streaming responses, confirm the last received message, or continue partial task execution. Current designs assume best-effort reconnection semantics and do not specify maximum recovery windows or reconnection deadlines. This gap is particularly critical for long-running or mission-critical agent workflows that rely on uninterrupted session continuity.¶

** User-Session Binding: Protocols only support tenant isolation but lack standardized user identity fields. This prevents user-level session isolation, cross-device session synchronization, and user-specific session management.¶

** Extended State Semantics: The state machine lacks semantics for long-running interactions, such as SUSPENDED (temporarily paused), or PENDING_EXTERNAL (e.g., waiting for a response from an external system). This forces long-running tasks to remain in WORKING state, leading to ambiguous semantics.¶

** Session level constrains: While A2A allows message metadata to provid a deadline, it does not have any scheduling gurantee or univarsal deadline. Session-level Quality-of-Service (QoS) attributes, such as maximum task-completion deadlines, bounded execution times, or task priority levels attached to session operations left unclear or to the application implementaiton.¶

5.1. A2A Coverage

Existing A2A protocol provides a foundational authorization framework covering high-level access control requirements:¶

** OAuth Scope Support: OAuth 2.0 flows support coarse-grained permission grants.¶

5.2. MCP Coverage

MCP incorporate transport level authorization using OAuth 2.1 and OAuth 2.0 protocol. However, it implements a subset of protocol features for simplicity.¶

5.3. Gaps and Potential Work Space in Open Internet

The current authorization framework is insufficient for open Internet deployments, where cross-domain access, fine-grained resource control,and dynamic trust relationships are required:¶

** Resource-Level Authorization: Protocols only support agent-level authorization. There is no mechanism to enforce permissions at the resource level (e.g., Task, Artifact, or Message), preventing use cases such as "allow read access to this task but not that one".¶

** Delegation Authorization: Cross-domain and multi-agent scenarios require delegation (e.g., Agent A acting on behalf of a user to access Agent B). Protocols lack standardized delegation mechanisms, including delegation scope, time limits,and revocation.¶

** Cross-Domain Permission Propagation: When an agent delegates a task to a cross-domain agent, there is no mechanism to propagate permissions in a controlled manner (e.g., "Agent A can access Agent B's read skill on behalf of the user, but not write"). This leads to either over-privileged delegation or failed cross-domain interactions.¶

** Authorization Auditing: There is no standardized mechanism to log authorization events (e.g., who accessed what resource, when, with what permission). This hinders compliance with regulatory requirements and security incident investigation.¶

6.1. A2A Coverage

Existing A2A protocols provide a foundational multi-modal transmission framework centered on the "part" construct, enabling exchange of diverse data types:¶

** Unified Multi-Modal Carrier: The "part" construct supports multiple data types, including text, binary data, etc., with "mediaType" to indicate the data format(e.g., text/plain, application/json, image/png).¶

** Streaming Multi-Modal Transmission: The protocol supports incremental transmission of multi-modal data, including (e.g.,streaming video frames, incremental text + images).¶

6.2. MCP Coverage

MCP is desinged primarity for text based JSON-RPC communication.¶

6.3. Gaps and Potential Work Space in Open Internet

While the core multi-modal framework is functional, open Internet deployments require additional support for large data, dynamic adaptation, and interactive use cases:¶

** Large File and Chunked Transmission: There is no support for chunked upload/download of large multi-modal data (e.g., videos, high-resolution images). The raw field uses base64 encoding for binary data, which is inefficient for large files, and there is no mechanism for hash verification. ** latency bounded transmission: The protocols lack mechanism for predictable/controlled ordering and loss handling of task for critical agent message. As a result, timing-sensitive agent behaviors (e.g., cooperative planning loops ) cannot rely on predictable inter-agent message timing.¶

** Ordering, and loss-handling of messages : MCP and A2A both lack mechanisms for conveying message ordering requirements across multi-modal data transmission. Similarly, no mechanisms exists to distinguish between messages that e.g. must be reliably delivered, those that may be dropped or superseded.¶

** Message importance/scheduling support : While MCP has non-interperable way to annotate priority as a tool argument, both MCP and A2A left prioritization and scheduling of message and task completion to the host of the application or agent orchastrator, not in the protocol. This would be a potential feature required in cross domain functioning of agents.¶