# Data Package: Post 6 — Drawing the Big Picture

## Synthesis Numbers

- **361 drafts, 557 authors, 230 orgs, 1,780 ideas, 12 gaps**
- **136 A2A protocols** with no interoperability layer
- **121 identity/auth drafts** building on OAuth 2.0 (RFC 6749, cited by 36 drafts)
- **45 safety drafts** vs **316 capability drafts** = 7:1 ratio
- **36 WG-adopted drafts** (10%) — 19 in security WGs, 2 in aipref

## The Foundation Layer (RFC Cross-References)

The ecosystem is built on:
1. **OAuth 2.0** (RFC 6749, 36 citations) — the auth foundation
2. **TLS 1.3** (RFC 8446, 42 citations) — the security transport
3. **HTTP Semantics** (RFC 9110, 34 citations) — the API layer
4. **JWT** (RFC 7519, 22 citations) — token format
5. **X.509 PKI** (RFC 5280, 22 citations) — identity certificates
6. **COSE** (RFC 9052, 20 citations) — constrained object signing
7. **CBOR** (RFC 8949, 19 citations) — binary data format
8. **QUIC** (RFC 9000, 16 citations) — transport

This reveals the DNA: the agent ecosystem is being built on web + IoT foundations. OAuth + JWT + TLS for the web side, COSE + CBOR for the constrained/IoT side.

## WG Adoption as Traction Signal

| Category | WG Drafts | Individual Drafts | WG % |
|----------|-----------|-------------------|------|
| Security/Crypto (lamps, lake, tls, emu, ace) | 19 | - | 53% of WG |
| Agent-specific (aipref) | 2 | - | 6% of WG |
| Other (httpbis, anima, suit, etc.) | 15 | - | 42% of WG |

**Key insight**: The IETF is not building new agent WGs — it's retrofitting existing security WGs for agents. This is actually good: it builds on proven foundations.

## Five Proposed Ecosystem Drafts (from Architect)

These address the gaps:
1. **AEM** (Agent Execution Model) — DAG-based orchestration
2. **ATD** (Agent Trust and Delegation) — builds on SPIFFE/WIMSE
3. **HITL** (Human-in-the-Loop) — override protocols
4. **AEPB** (Agent Ecosystem Profile for Business) — assurance profiles
5. **APAE** (Agent Protocol Adaptation and Exchange) — interop layer

## Predictions Data Support

1. **WG consolidation is likely**: Multiple competing approaches in auth (14+ OAuth drafts) creates pressure for WG adoption
2. **Safety will lag**: Only 10% of WG drafts address safety; the structural bias toward capability continues
3. **Chinese institutional advantage**: 152 drafts from Chinese orgs, coordinated (Huawei bloc: 94% cohesion); Western response is fragmented and late
4. **The interop layer is the bottleneck**: 136 A2A drafts, no interop = the single biggest structural problem

## Two Equilibria (from Architect's Vision Document)

- **Microservices chaos**: If fragmentation persists and safety ratio holds, the agent ecosystem becomes like early microservices — technically possible but operationally painful, with each deployment requiring custom integration
- **Layered web architecture**: If WGs consolidate fragmentation and the safety ratio narrows, the ecosystem converges on a layered architecture like the web (transport -> session -> identity -> application)

The 8:1 safety ratio is the leading indicator. If it narrows toward 4:1 or better, the good equilibrium is achievable.

## Builder Guidance Data

For the "What to Do" section:
1. **Watch ECT** (Ephemeral Credential Trust) — bridges SPIFFE-WIMSE, already WG-tracked
2. **Build HITL now** — only 30 drafts in this space; early movers define the patterns
3. **Design for protocol translation** — the 136-protocol zoo means any production system needs translation layers
4. **Invest in error recovery** — zero explicit drafts on agent error recovery; this is a field-defining opportunity
5. **Participate in IETF** — only 10% of drafts are WG-adopted; there's room for new contributors to shape outcomes
