Internet-Draft                                                      nmrg
Intended status: standards-track                              March 2026
Expires: September 05, 2026


         Real-Time Agent Rollback Protocol (RARP) for Autonomous Network Operations
         draft-agent-ecosystem-agent-rollback-protocol-00

Abstract

   Autonomous agents in network operations environments require the
   ability to quickly and safely rollback actions when incorrect
   decisions are made. While existing protocols enable agent
   communication and coordination, no standardized mechanism exists
   for distributed rollback operations across heterogeneous agent
   systems. This document specifies the Real-Time Agent Rollback
   Protocol (RARP), which provides coordinated rollback mechanisms
   for autonomous network agents. RARP defines checkpoint creation,
   rollback initiation procedures, state consistency verification,
   and cross-domain rollback coordination through agent gateways. The
   protocol integrates with existing agent communication frameworks
   and supports both immediate rollback for safety-critical scenarios
   and delayed rollback for complex distributed operations. RARP
   enables production deployment of autonomous network operations by
   providing the safety mechanisms necessary for agent decision
   reversal across distributed systems.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   This document is intended to have standards-track status.
   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
   NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
   "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
   described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
   appear in all capitals, as shown here.

   Rollback Point
      A consistent state snapshot across distributed agents from
      which rollback operations can be initiated

   Agent Transaction
      A coordinated set of actions performed by one or more agents
      that can be treated as an atomic unit for rollback purposes

   Rollback Coordinator
      An entity responsible for orchestrating rollback operations
      across multiple agents and domains

   Checkpoint Consistency
      The property that all agents participating in a rollback point
      have synchronized their state at the same logical time

   Cross-Domain Rollback
      A rollback operation that spans multiple administrative or
      protocol domains requiring gateway-mediated coordination

   Immediate Rollback
      A rollback operation initiated without coordination delays for
      safety-critical scenarios

   Coordinated Rollback
      A rollback operation that requires multi-agent coordination and
      consensus before execution


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  ................................................  3
   2.  Terminology  .................................................  4
   3.  Problem Statement  ...........................................  5
   4.  RARP Architecture and Components  ............................  6
   5.  Checkpoint Creation and Management  ..........................  7
   6.  Rollback Initiation and Coordination  ........................  8
   7.  Integration with Existing Agent Protocols  ...................  9
   8.  Security Considerations  .....................................  10
   9.  IANA Considerations  .........................................  11
   10.  References  ..................................................  12

1.  Introduction

   The proliferation of autonomous agents in network operations has
   introduced unprecedented capabilities for self-healing,
   optimization, and adaptive management across complex distributed
   systems. As described in [draft-chuyi-nmrg-ai-agent-network], AI-
   powered agents can now perform sophisticated reasoning and
   decision-making across previously isolated network management
   domains. However, the autonomous nature of these systems
   introduces a critical challenge: when agents make incorrect
   decisions or encounter unexpected conditions, there exists no
   standardized mechanism to safely and efficiently reverse their
   actions across distributed environments.

   Current agent communication frameworks, including those specified
   in [draft-fu-nmop-agent-communication-framework] and [draft-li-
   dmsc-macp], provide robust mechanisms for agent coordination and
   message exchange but do not address the fundamental requirement
   for transaction-like rollback capabilities. While traditional
   network management protocols such as NETCONF [RFC6241] include
   rollback mechanisms for configuration changes, these operate
   within single administrative domains and cannot coordinate complex
   rollback operations across heterogeneous agent systems spanning
   multiple domains and protocol layers.

   The Real-Time Agent Rollback Protocol (RARP) addresses this gap by
   providing a standardized framework for coordinated rollback
   operations in autonomous network environments. RARP builds upon
   existing agent communication protocols and extends the cross-
   domain collaboration mechanisms outlined in [draft-han-rtgwg-
   agent-gateway-intercomm-framework] to enable rollback coordination
   through gateway intermediaries. The protocol supports both
   immediate rollback for safety-critical scenarios where agent
   actions must be reversed without delay, and coordinated rollback
   for complex distributed operations requiring multi-agent consensus
   and state synchronization.

   The architecture defined in this document integrates with existing
   agent controller coordination mechanisms [draft-jadoon-nmrg-
   agentic-ai-autonomous-networks] while introducing specialized
   rollback coordinators and checkpoint managers that operate
   alongside current agent communication infrastructure. RARP
   leverages established security frameworks including TLS 1.3
   [RFC8446] and OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] to ensure authenticated and
   authorized rollback operations across administrative boundaries.
   By providing these safety mechanisms, RARP enables the production
   deployment of autonomous network operations with the confidence
   that agent decisions can be safely reversed when necessary.

   This specification defines the protocol semantics, message formats
   using JSON [RFC8259] encoding, and integration patterns necessary
   for implementing RARP across diverse agent ecosystems. The key
   words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
   and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described
   in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in
   all capitals, as shown here.

2.  Terminology

   This document uses terminology consistent with existing agent
   communication and network management protocols. The key words
   "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
   "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   The following terms are defined for use throughout this
   specification:

   Agent: An autonomous software entity capable of making decisions
   and performing actions in network operations environments, as
   defined in [draft-fu-nmop-agent-communication-framework]. Agents
   operate with varying degrees of autonomy and may collaborate
   through standardized communication protocols.

   Agent Gateway: A protocol intermediary that enables communication
   and coordination between agents operating in different
   administrative domains or using different communication protocols,
   as specified in [draft-han-rtgwg-agent-gateway-intercomm-
   framework]. Agent gateways provide protocol translation and policy
   enforcement for cross-domain agent interactions.

   Agent Transaction: A coordinated set of actions performed by one
   or more agents that can be treated as an atomic unit for rollback
   purposes. Agent transactions may span multiple network devices,
   protocol domains, or administrative boundaries and maintain
   consistency properties across distributed operations.

   Checkpoint: A persistent snapshot of agent state and network
   configuration that serves as a potential rollback target.
   Checkpoints contain sufficient information to restore agents and
   affected network elements to a previously known consistent state.

   Checkpoint Consistency: The property that all agents participating
   in a rollback point have synchronized their state at the same
   logical time. Consistency verification ensures that rollback
   operations restore the system to a coherent state across all
   participating entities.

   Checkpoint Manager: A system component responsible for creating,
   storing, validating, and managing rollback checkpoints. Checkpoint
   managers coordinate with agents to capture state snapshots and
   maintain checkpoint metadata required for rollback operations.

   Coordination State: The current status of multi-agent
   collaboration activities, including pending transactions, active
   rollback operations, and inter-agent dependencies. Coordination
   states are maintained by rollback coordinators to ensure proper
   sequencing of rollback operations.

   Cross-Domain Rollback: A rollback operation that spans multiple
   administrative or protocol domains requiring gateway-mediated
   coordination. Cross-domain rollbacks involve additional complexity
   for authentication, authorization, and state synchronization
   across domain boundaries.

   Coordinated Rollback: A rollback operation that requires multi-
   agent coordination and consensus before execution. Coordinated
   rollbacks involve explicit agreement protocols to ensure all
   affected agents participate in the rollback operation and reach
   consistent post-rollback states.

   Immediate Rollback: A rollback operation initiated without
   coordination delays for safety-critical scenarios. Immediate
   rollbacks prioritize rapid response over coordination completeness
   and are typically used when network safety or security is at
   immediate risk.

   Rollback Coordinator: An entity responsible for orchestrating
   rollback operations across multiple agents and domains. Rollback
   coordinators implement the consensus and coordination protocols
   required for distributed rollback operations and may operate in
   hierarchical configurations for scalability.

   Rollback Point: A consistent state snapshot across distributed
   agents from which rollback operations can be initiated. Rollback
   points represent verified consistent states that can be safely
   restored through coordinated agent actions.

3.  Problem Statement

   The deployment of autonomous agents in network operations
   environments introduces fundamental challenges in ensuring
   operational safety through reliable rollback mechanisms. Current
   agent communication protocols, including those specified in
   [draft-fu-nmop-agent-communication-framework] and [draft-han-
   rtgwg-agent-gateway-intercomm-framework], provide sophisticated
   mechanisms for agent coordination and cross-domain collaboration
   but lack standardized approaches for distributed rollback
   operations. When autonomous agents make incorrect decisions or
   encounter unexpected failure conditions, the ability to quickly
   and consistently revert to a known-good state becomes critical for
   maintaining network stability and service availability.

   State consistency across distributed agent systems presents the
   most significant challenge in implementing effective rollback
   mechanisms. Unlike traditional centralized systems where rollback
   operations can be performed atomically, autonomous network agents
   operate across multiple administrative domains, protocol layers,
   and time scales as described in [draft-jadoon-nmrg-agentic-ai-
   autonomous-networks]. Each agent maintains its own local state and
   interacts with network infrastructure through different
   interfaces, including NETCONF [RFC6241], RESTful APIs, and
   proprietary management protocols. Ensuring that all participating
   agents can synchronously return to a consistent checkpoint state
   requires sophisticated coordination mechanisms that current agent
   communication frameworks do not provide. The distributed nature of
   these systems means that network partitions, communication delays,
   and partial failures can result in inconsistent rollback states
   where some agents successfully revert while others remain in post-
   action states.

   Cross-domain coordination introduces additional complexity as
   agents operating in different administrative domains must
   coordinate rollback operations through gateway intermediaries. The
   agent gateway framework specified in [draft-han-rtgwg-agent-
   gateway-intercomm-framework] enables cross-domain agent
   collaboration but does not address the specific requirements for
   propagating rollback requests, maintaining checkpoint consistency
   across domain boundaries, or handling authorization and security
   constraints in multi-domain rollback scenarios. Different domains
   may have varying rollback policies, checkpoint retention
   requirements, and security constraints that must be negotiated and
   enforced during cross-domain rollback operations. Furthermore, the
   hierarchical nature of network operations means that rollback
   decisions made at higher levels may cascade to multiple lower-
   level domains, requiring sophisticated dependency tracking and
   coordination protocols.

   Timing constraints in network operations environments create
   additional challenges for rollback protocol design. Safety-
   critical scenarios, such as security incidents or cascading
   failures, require immediate rollback capabilities that cannot wait
   for full distributed coordination to complete. However, immediate
   rollback operations risk creating inconsistent states if not all
   participating agents can execute the rollback synchronously.
   Conversely, complex distributed operations may require coordinated
   rollback procedures that involve extensive negotiation and
   validation phases, but network conditions may change during these
   coordination periods, potentially invalidating the target rollback
   state. Current agent communication protocols lack mechanisms for
   expressing these timing constraints and do not provide
   differentiated handling for immediate versus coordinated rollback
   scenarios.

   Existing agent communication frameworks also lack adequate
   mechanisms for rollback-specific concerns including checkpoint
   metadata management, rollback authorization, and audit trail
   generation. The multi-agent coordination protocols specified in
   [draft-li-dmsc-macp] provide general coordination primitives but
   do not address the specific state management requirements for
   maintaining consistent checkpoint data across distributed systems.
   Additionally, current protocols do not define standardized
   approaches for validating checkpoint integrity, handling rollback
   conflicts when multiple agents attempt simultaneous rollback
   operations, or providing the detailed audit capabilities required
   for post-rollback analysis and compliance reporting in production
   network environments.

4.  RARP Architecture and Components

   The Real-Time Agent Rollback Protocol architecture is designed to
   integrate seamlessly with existing autonomous agent
   infrastructures while providing coordinated rollback capabilities
   across distributed network operations environments. The
   architecture follows a layered approach that separates rollback
   coordination logic from agent-specific implementations, enabling
   deployment across heterogeneous agent systems. RARP components
   leverage existing agent communication frameworks defined in
   [draft-fu-nmop-agent-communication-framework] and integrate with
   agent gateway mechanisms specified in [draft-han-rtgwg-agent-
   gateway-intercomm-framework] to provide cross-domain rollback
   coordination capabilities.

   Domain A                     Domain B
   +---------------------+     +---------------------+
   | +------+  +------+  |     | +------+  +------+  |
   | |Agt 1 |  |Agt 2 |  |     | |Agt 3 |  |Agt 4 |  |
   | +--+---+  +--+---+  |     | +--+---+  +--+---+  |
   |    |         |       |     |    |         |       |
   | +--+---------+----+  |     | +--+---------+----+  |
   | |Checkpoint Manager|  |     | |Checkpoint Manager|  |
   | +--------+---------+  |     | +--------+---------+  |
   |          |            |     |          |            |
   | +--------+---------+  |     | +--------+---------+  |
   | |Rollback Coordintr|  |     | |Rollback Coordintr|  |
   | +--------+---------+  |     | +--------+---------+  |
   +----------|------------+     +----------|------------+
              |                             |
              +----------+  +--------------+
                         |  |
                    +----+--+----+
                    |   Agent    |
                    |  Gateway   |
                    +------------+

      Figure 1: RARP Cross-Domain Architecture

   The core RARP architecture consists of three primary component
   types: Rollback Coordinators, Checkpoint Managers, and Agent
   Rollback Interfaces. Rollback Coordinators serve as the
   orchestration layer for rollback operations and MUST implement
   coordination protocols for both immediate and delayed rollback
   scenarios. These coordinators maintain awareness of agent
   relationships, transaction boundaries, and rollback dependencies
   across the distributed system. Checkpoint Managers handle the
   creation, storage, validation, and retrieval of rollback points,
   implementing consistency verification procedures to ensure
   distributed state coherence. Agent Rollback Interfaces provide the
   integration layer between RARP components and existing agent
   systems, translating rollback operations into agent-specific state
   restoration procedures while maintaining compatibility with
   established agent communication protocols.

   RARP supports both hierarchical and distributed deployment models
   to accommodate varying network topologies and administrative
   requirements. In hierarchical deployments, a primary Rollback
   Coordinator oversees subordinate coordinators within each
   administrative domain, providing centralized rollback decision-
   making while delegating local coordination to domain-specific
   components. This model aligns with the centralized agent
   controller coordination patterns described in [draft-jadoon-nmrg-
   agentic-ai-autonomous-networks] and enables efficient rollback
   operations across large-scale autonomous network deployments.
   Distributed deployments eliminate single points of failure by
   implementing peer-to-peer coordination among Rollback
   Coordinators, using consensus mechanisms to ensure consistent
   rollback decisions across all participating domains.

   Integration with existing agent gateway infrastructure enables
   RARP to operate across heterogeneous agent systems without
   requiring modifications to established communication protocols.
   Agent gateways specified in [draft-han-rtgwg-agent-gateway-
   intercomm-framework] are extended with RARP capability negotiation
   and rollback message translation functions, allowing rollback
   coordination between agents using different communication
   frameworks. The architecture maintains protocol compatibility by
   implementing rollback operations as extensions to existing agent
   collaboration protocols rather than replacing established
   communication mechanisms. This approach ensures that RARP can be
   incrementally deployed in production environments without
   disrupting existing agent operations.

   The RARP architecture incorporates checkpoint consistency
   verification mechanisms that operate independently of agent-
   specific state representations. Checkpoint Managers implement
   distributed timestamp synchronization and state validation
   procedures to ensure that rollback points represent truly
   consistent distributed states across all participating agents. The
   architecture supports integration with AI Agent Network systems as
   described in [draft-chuyi-nmrg-ai-agent-network] by providing
   rollback interfaces that can reverse automated reasoning and
   decision-making operations performed by large language model-based
   agents. Component communication within the RARP architecture
   utilizes secure transport mechanisms including TLS 1.3 [RFC8446]
   and QUIC [RFC9000] to ensure rollback coordination messages are
   protected against tampering and unauthorized access during
   transmission between distributed components.

5.  Checkpoint Creation and Management

   Checkpoint creation in RARP enables autonomous agents to establish
   consistent state snapshots that serve as restoration points for
   rollback operations. Agents MUST implement checkpoint creation
   capabilities that capture both local state information and
   coordination metadata necessary for distributed rollback
   operations. The checkpoint creation process involves state
   serialization, metadata generation, and consistency coordination
   with peer agents participating in the same logical transaction
   scope. Agents SHOULD create checkpoints at natural transaction
   boundaries and MAY create additional checkpoints based on risk
   assessment algorithms or external triggers.

   The checkpoint data structure MUST include agent state
   information, transaction identifiers, temporal consistency
   markers, and dependency relationships with other agents as
   specified in [draft-han-rtgwg-agent-gateway-intercomm-framework].
   Checkpoint metadata MUST conform to the JSON format specified in
   [RFC8259] and include fields for checkpoint identifier, creation
   timestamp, agent identifier, transaction scope, dependency list,
   and integrity verification data. Cross-domain checkpoints MUST
   additionally include gateway coordination information and domain-
   specific authorization tokens as defined in [draft-fu-nmop-agent-
   communication-framework]. The checkpoint identifier MUST be
   globally unique and SHOULD incorporate both temporal and spatial
   components to ensure uniqueness across distributed deployments.

   Checkpoint storage mechanisms MUST provide durability guarantees
   appropriate for the operational context and SHOULD implement
   redundancy strategies to prevent single points of failure. Agents
   MAY utilize local storage, distributed storage systems, or
   centralized checkpoint repositories depending on deployment
   constraints and consistency requirements. Storage implementations
   MUST support atomic write operations and SHOULD provide integrity
   verification through cryptographic mechanisms as specified in
   [RFC8446]. Cross-domain checkpoint storage MUST implement access
   control mechanisms that respect administrative boundaries while
   enabling authorized rollback operations.

   Checkpoint consistency verification ensures that distributed
   checkpoints represent a globally consistent state across all
   participating agents. The consistency verification process MUST
   implement logical clock synchronization or vector clock mechanisms
   to establish temporal relationships between distributed
   checkpoints. Agents MUST validate checkpoint consistency before
   committing checkpoint data and SHOULD implement timeout mechanisms
   to handle non-responsive participants. For cross-domain scenarios,
   consistency verification MUST account for network partitions and
   administrative policy constraints that may affect coordination
   capabilities.

   Checkpoint lifecycle management encompasses creation, validation,
   storage, retrieval, and cleanup operations across the distributed
   agent system. Agents MUST implement checkpoint retention policies
   that balance storage costs with rollback capability requirements
   and SHOULD provide configuration mechanisms for policy
   customization. Checkpoint cleanup operations MUST respect
   dependency relationships and transaction boundaries to prevent
   premature deletion of required rollback data. The checkpoint
   manager component SHOULD implement background processes for
   checkpoint optimization, compression, and garbage collection to
   maintain system performance over extended operational periods.

6.  Rollback Initiation and Coordination

   Rollback operations in RARP are initiated through a well-defined
   trigger and coordination mechanism that ensures consistent state
   recovery across distributed agent systems. Rollback initiation can
   occur through multiple pathways: explicit administrative commands,
   automated safety triggers when agents detect anomalous conditions,
   or cascade triggers when dependent agent operations fail. The
   protocol defines two primary rollback modes - immediate rollback
   for safety-critical scenarios where rapid state recovery is
   essential, and coordinated rollback for complex distributed
   operations requiring multi-agent consensus. All rollback
   operations MUST specify a target rollback point identifier and
   include sufficient context information to enable receiving agents
   to validate the rollback request against their local checkpoint
   metadata.

   Coordinator     Agent A      Agent B      Agent C
       |              |            |            |
       |--PREPARE---->|            |            |
       |--PREPARE---------------->|            |
       |--PREPARE------------------------------>|
       |              |            |            |
       |<--READY------|            |            |
       |<--READY------------------|            |
       |<--READY---------------------------------|
       |              |            |            |
       |--COMMIT----->|            |            |
       |--COMMIT----------------->|            |
       |--COMMIT------------------------------->|
       |              |            |            |
       |  (rollback)  | (rollback) | (rollback) |
       |              |            |            |
       |<--DONE-------|            |            |
       |<--DONE-------------------|            |
       |<--DONE---------------------------------|

        Figure 2: Two-Phase Coordinated Rollback

   The coordination messaging framework builds upon the Cross-Domain
   Agent Collaboration Protocol [draft-han-rtgwg-agent-gateway-
   intercomm-framework] to enable rollback operations across
   heterogeneous agent systems and administrative boundaries. When a
   rollback coordinator receives a rollback initiation request, it
   MUST first validate the requesting entity's authorization and
   verify that the target rollback point exists across all
   participating agents. The coordinator then broadcasts a rollback
   preparation message to all agents within the rollback scope,
   allowing each agent to perform local consistency checks and report
   any conflicts or dependencies that might prevent successful
   rollback. This two-phase approach ensures that rollback operations
   only proceed when all participating agents can successfully return
   to the specified rollback point without creating inconsistent
   intermediate states.

   Immediate rollback scenarios bypass the standard coordination
   phase when safety-critical conditions are detected, such as
   security breaches or network failures that require rapid
   remediation. In immediate rollback mode, the rollback coordinator
   MUST issue rollback execution commands directly to all
   participating agents without waiting for preparation
   confirmations, accepting the risk of temporary inconsistency in
   favor of rapid recovery. Agents receiving immediate rollback
   commands SHALL prioritize rollback execution over normal
   operations and SHOULD complete rollback within the time bounds
   specified in the rollback request. The protocol defines fallback
   procedures for handling agents that cannot complete immediate
   rollback operations, including isolation mechanisms to prevent
   inconsistent agents from affecting the recovered system state.

   Coordinated rollback operations involve a more complex multi-phase
   protocol that ensures consistency across distributed agent systems
   through explicit consensus mechanisms. Following the preparation
   phase, agents that successfully validate the rollback request send
   confirmation messages to the rollback coordinator, while agents
   that detect conflicts or missing checkpoint data send abort
   messages with detailed error information. The coordinator
   implements a configurable consensus policy that determines whether
   to proceed with rollback based on the responses received - strict
   consensus requires all agents to confirm, while majority consensus
   allows rollback to proceed if a sufficient percentage of agents
   confirm readiness. If consensus is achieved, the coordinator
   broadcasts commit messages triggering simultaneous rollback
   execution; if consensus fails, the coordinator issues abort
   messages and logs the rollback attempt for administrative review.

   Conflict resolution mechanisms address scenarios where multiple
   concurrent rollback requests or overlapping rollback scopes create
   coordination challenges. The protocol employs a priority-based
   conflict resolution system where rollback requests include
   priority levels, timestamps, and scope identifiers that enable
   coordinators to determine precedence when conflicts occur. Higher
   priority rollback operations, such as security-related rollbacks,
   automatically supersede lower priority operations, while rollback
   requests with overlapping scope are serialized based on timestamp
   ordering. Cross-domain rollback conflicts are resolved through
   gateway-mediated negotiation procedures that leverage the agent
   controller coordination mechanisms defined in [draft-jadoon-nmrg-
   agentic-ai-autonomous-networks] to ensure consistent rollback
   decisions across administrative boundaries.

   The protocol includes comprehensive error handling and recovery
   procedures for rollback coordination failures, recognizing that
   rollback operations themselves may encounter system failures or
   network partitions. When rollback coordination fails due to
   network issues or coordinator failures, backup coordinators
   automatically assume responsibility for completing the rollback
   operation using persistent coordination state stored during the
   initial phases. Partial rollback failures, where some agents
   successfully rollback while others fail, trigger automatic
   reconciliation procedures that either retry the failed rollback
   operations or initiate compensating actions to restore system
   consistency. All rollback coordination activities are logged with
   sufficient detail to enable post-incident analysis and continuous
   improvement of rollback procedures in production autonomous
   network operations environments.

7.  Integration with Existing Agent Protocols

   RARP is designed to integrate seamlessly with existing agent
   communication frameworks and protocols, leveraging established
   mechanisms while extending them with rollback-specific
   capabilities. The protocol operates as an overlay service that can
   be bound to various underlying agent communication protocols,
   including those defined in [draft-fu-nmop-agent-communication-
   framework] and [draft-li-dmsc-macp]. Integration is achieved
   through protocol-specific binding specifications that map RARP
   operations to the message formats and coordination mechanisms of
   the underlying framework. This approach ensures that RARP can be
   deployed incrementally without requiring wholesale replacement of
   existing agent infrastructure.

   For cross-domain scenarios, RARP extends the gateway mechanisms
   defined in [draft-han-rtgwg-agent-gateway-intercomm-framework] to
   support rollback coordination across administrative boundaries.
   Agent gateways MUST implement RARP-specific message translation
   and state synchronization functions when serving as intermediaries
   for cross-domain rollback operations. The gateway extensions
   include rollback capability negotiation during agent discovery,
   checkpoint metadata translation between domains, and coordination
   of distributed rollback timing. Gateways SHOULD maintain rollback
   context for active cross-domain agent transactions and MUST
   participate in checkpoint consistency verification procedures when
   coordinating multi-domain rollbacks.

   RARP bindings for common transport protocols are defined to ensure
   broad compatibility with existing deployments. For NETCONF-based
   agent communication [RFC6241], RARP operations are encapsulated
   within custom RPC operations that extend the base protocol
   capabilities. HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 [RFC9000] bindings utilize JSON-
   encoded messages [RFC8259] for rollback coordination, with TLS 1.3
   [RFC8446] providing transport security. WebSocket connections MAY
   be used for real-time rollback notifications in environments
   requiring low-latency coordination. Each binding specification
   defines the mapping between RARP primitive operations and the
   specific message formats and error handling mechanisms of the
   underlying protocol.

   The integration architecture supports both centralized and
   distributed coordination models as described in [draft-jadoon-
   nmrg-agentic-ai-autonomous-networks]. In centralized deployments,
   a single rollback coordinator interfaces with existing agent
   controllers to provide system-wide rollback capabilities.
   Distributed deployments utilize peer-to-peer coordination among
   agents while maintaining compatibility with hierarchical agent
   architectures. RARP implementations MUST support capability
   advertisement through existing agent discovery mechanisms,
   allowing agents to negotiate rollback support and identify
   compatible rollback coordinators during system initialization.

   Authentication and authorization for RARP operations leverage
   existing agent security frameworks where possible. OAuth 2.0
   [RFC6749] tokens MAY be used for cross-domain authorization when
   integrating with web-based agent platforms. The protocol defines
   extension points for integrating with domain-specific
   authentication mechanisms while maintaining consistent rollback
   authorization policies. Implementations SHOULD reuse existing
   agent identity management infrastructure to minimize operational
   complexity and ensure consistent security policies across normal
   operations and rollback scenarios.

8.  Security Considerations

   The rollback capabilities provided by RARP introduce several
   security considerations that must be addressed to ensure safe
   deployment in production autonomous network environments. Rollback
   operations inherently involve state manipulation and coordination
   across distributed systems, creating potential attack vectors that
   could be exploited to disrupt network operations or gain
   unauthorized access to sensitive network state information. The
   cross-domain nature of RARP operations, as described in [draft-
   han-rtgwg-agent-gateway-intercomm-framework], further amplifies
   these security concerns by introducing trust boundaries and
   protocol translation points where security policies may differ.

   Authorization and access control for rollback operations MUST be
   implemented using strong authentication mechanisms consistent with
   [RFC8446] for transport-layer security and [RFC6749] for
   authorization delegation across domains. Each rollback coordinator
   and participating agent MUST authenticate its identity before
   initiating or participating in rollback operations. The protocol
   MUST enforce role-based access control where only authorized
   entities can initiate rollback operations for specific network
   domains or agent systems. Cross-domain rollback operations MUST
   validate authorization chains through gateway intermediaries,
   ensuring that rollback requests are properly authenticated at each
   administrative boundary. Emergency or immediate rollback
   operations SHOULD maintain security requirements while providing
   expedited authorization paths for safety-critical scenarios.

   Comprehensive audit trails MUST be maintained for all rollback
   operations to ensure accountability and enable forensic analysis
   of network incidents. The audit system MUST record rollback
   initiation events, participating agents, checkpoint identifiers,
   authorization decisions, and completion status using tamper-
   resistant logging mechanisms. These audit records MUST be
   synchronized across participating domains and stored with
   sufficient integrity protection to prevent unauthorized
   modification. The audit trail format SHOULD be compatible with
   existing network management audit systems and MUST include
   sufficient detail to reconstruct the sequence of events leading to
   and following rollback operations.

   Protection against malicious rollback attacks requires careful
   consideration of potential attack vectors including replay
   attacks, unauthorized rollback initiation, and checkpoint
   poisoning. The protocol MUST implement sequence numbers and
   timestamps to prevent replay of rollback messages, with
   verification of message freshness using techniques consistent with
   [RFC9000]. Rollback coordinators MUST validate checkpoint
   integrity before executing rollback operations and SHOULD
   implement rate limiting to prevent denial-of-service attacks
   through excessive rollback requests. The protocol MUST detect and
   mitigate attempts to rollback to compromised or maliciously
   modified checkpoints through cryptographic verification of
   checkpoint contents and metadata.

   Cross-domain security implications require special consideration
   for trust establishment and security policy coordination between
   administrative domains. Gateway entities facilitating cross-domain
   rollback MUST enforce security policy translation and ensure that
   rollback operations comply with the security requirements of all
   participating domains. The protocol MUST support security policy
   negotiation to establish common security parameters for cross-
   domain rollback operations while maintaining the security
   standards of the most restrictive participating domain. Inter-
   domain rollback operations SHOULD implement additional
   verification steps and MAY require human authorization for
   operations that could significantly impact network stability
   across domain boundaries.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests the creation of several new IANA registries
   for the Real-Time Agent Rollback Protocol (RARP) and the
   registration of initial values. The registries are necessary to
   ensure consistent implementation and interoperability of RARP
   across different autonomous agent systems and administrative
   domains. These registries support the protocol's integration with
   existing agent communication frameworks as defined in [draft-fu-
   nmop-agent-communication-framework] and cross-domain coordination
   mechanisms specified in [draft-han-rtgwg-agent-gateway-intercomm-
   framework].

   IANA is requested to create a new registry group titled "Real-Time
   Agent Rollback Protocol (RARP) Parameters" with four sub-
   registries. The "RARP Message Types" registry MUST contain 16-bit
   unsigned integer values from 0 to 65535, with values 0-255
   reserved for IANA allocation and 256-65535 designated for first-
   come, first-served registration following [RFC8126] guidelines.
   Initial registrations MUST include: ROLLBACKREQUEST (1),
   ROLLBACKRESPONSE (2), CHECKPOINTCREATE (3), CHECKPOINTVALIDATE
   (4), COORDINATIONINIT (5), and COORDINATIONCOMPLETE (6). Each
   registration requires a message type name, numeric value,
   description, and reference to this specification or subsequent
   extensions.

   The "RARP Error Codes" registry SHALL use 16-bit unsigned integer
   values with similar allocation policies. Initial error code
   registrations MUST include: CHECKPOINTNOTFOUND (1001),
   INSUFFICIENTPERMISSIONS (1002), ROLLBACKCONFLICT (1003),
   CROSSDOMAINFAILURE (1004), STATEINCONSISTENT (1005), and
   COORDINATIONTIMEOUT (1006). The "RARP Capability Identifiers"
   registry uses string-based identifiers following the reverse DNS
   naming convention to prevent namespace collisions. Initial
   capability identifiers SHOULD include "rollback.immediate",
   "rollback.coordinated", "checkpoint.distributed", and
   "integration.gateway" to support the core protocol functionality
   and integration patterns described in this specification.

   The "RARP Agent Transaction Types" registry supports the
   classification and coordination of rollback operations across
   heterogeneous agent systems. This registry uses string-based
   identifiers and MUST include initial registrations for
   "network.configuration", "routing.policy", "security.rule", and
   "service.deployment" to align with common network operations use
   cases. Registration procedures for all RARP registries MUST
   require specification of the parameter name, value, description,
   security considerations if applicable, and reference document.
   Registrants SHOULD provide interoperability considerations when
   the parameter affects cross-domain operations or integration with
   existing protocols such as NETCONF [RFC6241] or agent gateway
   frameworks.

   All RARP registry entries MUST be subject to expert review for
   values in the IANA allocation ranges, with designated experts
   evaluating technical soundness, potential conflicts with existing
   registrations, and alignment with RARP architectural principles.
   The expert review process SHALL consider the impact on cross-
   domain rollback coordination and compatibility with existing agent
   communication protocols. Registry updates affecting security-
   sensitive parameters such as authorization capabilities or cross-
   domain coordination mechanisms require additional security review
   to ensure consistency with the security considerations outlined in
   Section 8 of this specification and general security practices for
   autonomous network operations.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC 2119]
         RFC 2119

   [RFC 8174]
         RFC 8174

   [RFC 8259]
         RFC 8259

   [RFC 6241]
         RFC 6241

   [draft-han-rtgwg-agent-gateway-intercomm-framework]
         draft-han-rtgwg-agent-gateway-intercomm-framework

   [draft-li-dmsc-macp]
         draft-li-dmsc-macp

   [draft-fu-nmop-agent-communication-framework]
         draft-fu-nmop-agent-communication-framework

10.2.  Informative References

   [RFC 8446]
         RFC 8446

   [RFC 9000]
         RFC 9000

   [RFC 6749]
         RFC 6749

   [draft-chuyi-nmrg-ai-agent-network]
         draft-chuyi-nmrg-ai-agent-network

   [draft-jadoon-nmrg-agentic-ai-autonomous-networks]
         draft-jadoon-nmrg-agentic-ai-autonomous-networks

   [draft-vandoulas-aidp]
         draft-vandoulas-aidp

   [draft-cui-ai-agent-discovery-invocation]
         draft-cui-ai-agent-discovery-invocation

   [draft-wang-nmrg-magent-im]
         draft-wang-nmrg-magent-im

   [draft-cui-nmrg-llm-benchmark]
         draft-cui-nmrg-llm-benchmark

   [draft-yue-anima-agent-recovery-networks]
         draft-yue-anima-agent-recovery-networks


Author's Address

   Generated by IETF Draft Analyzer
   Family: agent-ecosystem
   2026-03-04
