Network Working Group C. McCormack Internet-Draft Zero Trust Intelligence Intended status: Informational 17 October 2026 Expires: 20 April 2027 The Zero Trust Intelligence Protocol (ZTIP): Governed, Independently Verified AI Agent Transactions draft-mccormack-ztip-01 Abstract The Zero Trust Intelligence Protocol (ZTIP) is an open, transport- neutral protocol for governed AI agent transactions. It defines five immutable JSON envelope types and a transaction lifecycle under which every agent-initiated action is authorized by policy before execution, integrity-protected by hash over a canonical form, and -- distinctively -- verified as complete by an authority independent of the actor that performed the work. An executor's claim of success is treated as attestation, and attestation alone never satisfies a required verification check. This revision states what integrity verification does not establish, and specifies the fail-closed rules an implementation MUST apply when it verifies a set of envelopes together, so that a verification report can never claim more than was actually checked. This document describes ZTIP version 1.0-draft for the record; the full specification, JSON Schemas, examples, and a reference runtime are maintained in the open at the repository referenced herein. About This Document This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. This document is an individual submission with informational intent. It does not represent IETF consensus. Discussion and the authoritative, continuously maintained specification text are located at https://github.com/bitscon/ztip . Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. McCormack Expires 20 April 2027 [Page 1] Internet-Draft ZTIP October 2026 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on 20 April 2027. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Transaction Lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Envelope Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Integrity Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. What Integrity Verification Establishes . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. What Integrity Verification Does Not Establish . . . . . 6 6. Completion Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1. Declared Before Execution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.2. The Independence Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.3. Fail-Closed Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.4. Recorded Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Bundle Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Conformance Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. Transport Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Changes from draft-mccormack-ztip-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 McCormack Expires 20 April 2027 [Page 2] Internet-Draft ZTIP October 2026 1. Introduction AI agents are being composed into production workflows at scale: planners invoke executors, orchestrators invoke specialists, tools invoke tools. In most deployed systems these handoffs carry no governance artifact. One agent passes a message; another acts on it. Nothing is authorized against policy, nothing is integrity-protected, and -- the gap this protocol is centrally concerned with -- nothing independently establishes that the work an agent claims to have finished was actually finished. Existing and emerging mechanisms in this space largely govern whether an agent MAY act (identity, authorization, policy interception) and record what was decided (signed decision or action receipts). ZTIP covers that ground and then addresses the remaining question: did the authorized action verifiably complete? ZTIP's answer is structural. Verification requirements are declared before execution, bound by hash to the authorized request, and evaluated after execution by an authority independent of the executor. A transaction resolves as succeeded only when every required check has passed under independent verification; otherwise it fails, closed, with a reason code that distinguishes a failed check from an unverified claim. ZTIP does not restrict which agent frameworks, models, or tools are used, and it does not define a transport. It governs the transaction artifact: what was requested, whether policy authorized it, and what verifiably happened. This document summarizes the protocol for the record; the authoritative, continuously maintained specification, JSON Schemas, lifecycle examples with recomputable hashes, and a reference runtime are published openly [ZTIP-SPEC] . Implementation experience since the previous revision surfaced a failure mode that deserves protocol-level treatment: a verifier can report "verified" over content whose scope it never established -- an empty set of envelopes, a reference that resolved to nothing, a record that is missing the envelope that would contradict it. A tool that does this reproduces, one layer down, the very substitution of claim for evidence that ZTIP exists to prevent. Section 5.2 states what integrity verification does not establish, and Section 7 specifies the fail-closed rules for verifying a set of envelopes together. Appendix "Changes from draft-mccormack-ztip-00" lists the changes in this revision. McCormack Expires 20 April 2027 [Page 3] Internet-Draft ZTIP October 2026 2. Conventions and Definitions 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. Transaction The full governed unit of work, from request creation to final receipt. A lifecycle with defined states, not a single message. Envelope An immutable, integrity-protected JSON object carrying one transaction event. Subsequent events produce new, linked envelopes; prior envelopes are never modified. Bundle A set of ZTIP envelopes verified together: the envelopes of one transaction, an audit-trail export, or an evidence package. A bundle is a verification unit, not a transaction event, and is not itself an envelope. Actor Any entity participating in a transaction: an AI agent, an automated system, or a human. All actors are identifiable to the control plane. Role A protocol-level governance classification. ZTIP defines nine roles: operator, control_plane, source_actor, target_actor, planner, executor, validator, auditor, and runtime. Roles describe governance function; tool, vendor, and model names MUST NOT appear as role values. Control plane The authority that evaluates policy and issues authorization decisions. ZTIP defines what a control plane must do, not what it must be; any implementation meeting the conformance requirements is a valid control plane. Attestation An actor's own report about its work or results. Attestation is input to verification -- evidence to be checked -- never the check itself. Annotation field A non-normative member whose key begins with an underscore. Annotation fields are removed before canonicalization and are therefore outside the envelope hash. McCormack Expires 20 April 2027 [Page 4] Internet-Draft ZTIP October 2026 3. Transaction Lifecycle A ZTIP transaction progresses through defined states; not every state is reached in every transaction. The states are: created, submitted, evaluated, authorized, rejected, accepted, executing, verifying, succeeded, failed, cancelled, and expired. Every terminal state -- succeeded, failed, rejected, cancelled, expired -- produces a receipt. The verifying state is first-class: after execution and before resolution, declared verification requirements are evaluated as described in Section 6 . 4. Envelope Types ZTIP defines five envelope types: transaction_request Created by the source actor: the requested action (a structured action wrapper with typed parameters, capability requirements, and risk level), the target, and the verification requirements that must pass for the outcome to count as success. authorization_decision Issued only by the control plane after policy evaluation. Carries an authorization status (auto_authorized, human_approval_required, human_approved, evidence_required, rejected, or expired), references to the policies evaluated, reason codes, and the hash of the request it authorizes. Human approvals are transaction-specific, action-bound, target-bound, and single-use by default. execution_receipt The result envelope. References the original request by hash, records what was attempted and completed, and carries the verification results that establish (or refuse) completion. evidence_record Typed supporting material submitted to satisfy a policy or verification requirement: test results, approval records, prior receipts, compliance attestations. amendment_event A linked event against an existing transaction (for example, a cancellation request). Amendments do not mutate transaction state directly; the control plane evaluates them and issues the resulting transition. An object that declares any ZTIP envelope field -- ztap_version, envelope_type, transaction_id, or integrity -- is an envelope and MUST be verified as one, even when it also carries a member that would otherwise mark it as a bundle wrapper. See Section 7 . McCormack Expires 20 April 2027 [Page 5] Internet-Draft ZTIP October 2026 5. Integrity Model Every envelope carries an integrity object declaring its canonicalization scheme, hash algorithm, and hash value. Integrity is mandatory: an envelope without a verifiable hash is not a ZTIP envelope. Encryption is policy-conditional and MUST NOT be a prerequisite for envelope processing; envelopes are human-auditable JSON by default. ZTIP v1 uses SHA-256 over the RFC 8785 JSON Canonicalization Scheme [RFC8785] canonical form of the envelope, computed with the integrity hash_value itself removed and underscore-prefixed non-normative annotation keys stripped recursively before canonicalization. The remainder of the integrity object -- including the declared canonicalization and algorithm -- stays inside the hash input, so the declared method is itself tamper-evident. Envelopes reference one another by hash (for example, an authorization_decision binds the request_hash of the request it authorizes; a receipt references the request by hash), forming a verifiable chain for the transaction. This hash rule is unchanged from the previous revision. For historical reasons the envelope version field is named ztap_version, after the protocol's original working name. The field name participates in the hashed canonical content and is therefore retained unchanged; implementations MUST treat it as a fixed protocol identifier. 5.1. What Integrity Verification Establishes Recomputing an envelope's hash answers, and only answers, whether the content in hand is the content that was sealed: whether an envelope has been altered since issuance, whether a receipt corresponds to the request it names, whether evidence corresponds to the transaction it claims to support, and whether an append-only audit log has been tampered with. Because the hash is computed from the envelope's own content, anyone holding the envelope can recompute it; intactness is checkable by everyone, without a secret. 5.2. What Integrity Verification Does Not Establish That same property -- self-contained recomputability -- is why integrity verification is silent on three separate questions. An implementation MUST NOT present hash verification as answering any of them. Authenticity An intact envelope is self-consistent. It is not McCormack Expires 20 April 2027 [Page 6] Internet-Draft ZTIP October 2026 evidence that a trusted party produced it, because the party that altered it could recompute the hash as easily as the party that issued it. Binding an envelope to an identity requires a signature or an independent attestation, which ZTIP v1 does not mandate; see Section 11 . Whether a declared check actually ran Integrity binds the results a receipt records. It cannot establish that those results came from executing the declared checks. That separation is the subject of Section 6 , and it is settled by the control plane, not by a hash. Whether the record is complete A set of envelopes may each verify intact and still be missing the envelope that would change the reading -- the request a receipt names, the second request that contradicts it, the receipt that reports a different outcome. Completeness is the subject of Section 7 . Reporting "verified" over content whose scope was not established is the failure mode these rules exist to prevent. A verification report that overstates its scope is worse than no report: it converts an unexamined record into an apparently examined one, and every consumer downstream inherits that error. 6. Completion Verification An executor's claim of success is attestation. It is not verification. A transaction is not complete because the actor that performed the work says it is complete; it is complete when the verification requirements declared in the request have passed under an authority independent of that actor. 6.1. Declared Before Execution Verification requirements are declared in the transaction_request, before any action is taken. Each required check is structured (check identifier, check type, expected result); free-text-only checks are invalid. Because the envelope hash binds the declared checks to the authorized request, criteria invented after execution are not verification requirements. 6.2. The Independence Requirement Verification MUST be performed by an authority independent of the target actor that executed the action: the control plane, a designated validator actor, or deterministic re-execution of the declared checks. The executor's own report of its results is attestation. Attestation is input to verification -- evidence to be checked -- and attestation alone MUST NOT satisfy a required McCormack Expires 20 April 2027 [Page 7] Internet-Draft ZTIP October 2026 verification check. The entity that executes does not verify its own work; this is the same separation that forbids self-authorization, applied to completion. 6.3. Fail-Closed Acceptance A receipt claiming success is accepted as succeeded only when every required verification check has passed under independent verification. The failure modes are distinct and carry distinct reason codes: * A required check that was independently executed and did not pass resolves the transaction failed with reason code VERIFY_FAILED. * A required check satisfied only by executor attestation -- never independently verified -- resolves the transaction failed with reason code COMPLETION_UNVERIFIED. * If required verification cannot be executed at all, the transaction MUST NOT resolve succeeded; it resolves failed with reason code VERIFY_UNAVAILABLE. An unverifiable success is not a success. There is no partial credit for checks that were merely attested. 6.4. Recorded Results A receipt with status succeeded MUST record at least one verification result. A success that recorded no result asserts a completion that nothing checked, and is not a valid ZTIP receipt. Each recorded result MUST identify the check it reports -- its check identifier and check type -- and whether that check passed. A receipt in a non- succeeded terminal state MAY carry no results, because execution may never have reached verification; that case is honest and remains valid. Wherever verification results appear, they MUST be structured; free text is not a recorded result. A result carried under an annotation field is not recorded at all: annotation fields are outside the envelope hash, so the same hash describes the receipt with the result and without it, and nothing binds the producer to it. Results SHOULD identify the verifying authority. Naming it is a producer obligation: a verifier cannot tell from an envelope whether a named actor really performed a check, so its absence is a gap in the audit record rather than a verification failure. McCormack Expires 20 April 2027 [Page 8] Internet-Draft ZTIP October 2026 Recording results is a floor, not the whole requirement. Whether the recorded results correspond to the checks the request declared -- every declared requirement answered by a result carrying the same check identifier -- is settled by the control plane under Section 6.3 , not by envelope integrity verification. 7. Bundle Verification Envelopes are commonly verified in sets: the envelopes of one transaction, an audit-trail export, an evidence package. Verifying a set raises questions that verifying a single envelope does not -- what was in scope, what resolved, and what is absent -- and each of them is a way for a report to claim more than was checked. An implementation that verifies a bundle MUST apply the following rules. Each fails closed. A wrapper carries envelopes; it is not one. An object declaring any ZTIP envelope field -- ztap_version, envelope_type, transaction_id, or integrity -- is one envelope and is verified as such, even when it also carries an envelope collection member. Reading such an object as a wrapper would leave the envelope itself unverified while the reported count described its payload. An object declaring none of those fields, and carrying an envelope collection, is a wrapper. Testing a single field, such as envelope_type alone, leaves this bypass open to any object that drops or nulls that one field. An empty bundle is not a verified bundle. Verification over zero envelopes MUST NOT report success. An implementation MUST report how many envelopes it verified, so that no consumer -- human or automated -- can read "nothing to verify" as "everything verified". Report what was counted, not what was submitted. An implementation reporting a count states how many envelopes it verified and how many references it resolved. Zero resolved references is not a verified chain. References MUST resolve. A request_hash that names a transaction request not present in the bundle leaves that linkage unverified and MUST be reported as such. An implementation MAY offer an explicit mode for verifying a deliberately partial bundle -- receipts held without their requests, for example -- and in that mode it MUST state that chain linkage was not verified. References resolve by transaction. A request_hash is resolved McCormack Expires 20 April 2027 [Page 9] Internet-Draft ZTIP October 2026 against the transaction_request carrying the same transaction_id, and MUST equal that request's hash. Resolving by hash value alone would let a receipt bind itself to a different transaction's request. Every binding site is resolved, not only the top-level field. An authorization decision's human approval reference carries its own transaction_id and request_hash, and that pair is what binds a human approval to the work it approved. It is resolved under the same rule. Leaving it unchecked is how an approval for one transaction gets attached to another while every hash still verifies. One transaction request per transaction. A bundle carrying more than one transaction_request for a single transaction_id has an ambiguous request history: a second request can shadow the first while every hash still checks out. This is invalid regardless of which request the receipts reference. One transaction, one outcome. A transaction may carry several envelopes and several receipts, but receipts reporting different terminal states for one transaction_id are contradictory: a consumer would have to guess which one settles the transaction. A success MUST NOT contradict its own record. A succeeded receipt whose every recorded check reports failure is internally inconsistent, regardless of which checks were required. Envelopes MUST be ZTIP envelopes. Content that does not satisfy the envelope contract -- a protocol version the verifier supports, a known envelope_type, a transaction_id, an integrity object declaring the canonicalization and hash algorithm it was sealed under, and the fields that envelope type requires -- is not verifiable ZTIP content, and a self-computed hash over it MUST NOT be reported as a verified envelope. Value-level conformance beyond that contract -- identifier formats, role vocabularies, reason-code namespacing -- is schema validation, and a verifier that does not perform it MUST NOT imply that it did. Verify under the rules the envelope declares. An envelope declaring a canonicalization or hash algorithm the verifier does not apply MUST be reported, not silently verified under the verifier's own default. Otherwise the report describes a computation nobody performed. Content beside the envelopes is not verified. A wrapper may McCormack Expires 20 April 2027 [Page 10] Internet-Draft ZTIP October 2026 legitimately carry metadata -- an export identifier, a timestamp -- beside its envelopes. That content is outside every envelope hash, so an implementation MUST report it alongside its result. This is a disclosure duty, not grounds for refusal: refusing such an export would push integrators to stop verifying exports at all. The document MUST be unambiguous. A JSON object that declares the same member name twice means different things to different parsers while every hash still checks out. An integrity model built on a canonical form cannot accept that; such a document is not verifiable. Content that cannot be read at all -- input that is not well-formed UTF-8 JSON, or an envelope for which no canonical form can be computed -- is a usage error rather than a verification finding, and an implementation SHOULD report the two conditions distinguishably. 8. Conformance Levels The specification defines three conformance levels. Level 1 (Envelope Validator) parses and validates envelopes, verifies hashes, enforces the role and registry rules, and applies the bundle verification rules of Section 7 whenever it verifies more than one envelope together. Level 2 (Control Plane) manages the full lifecycle: registration, policy evaluation, authorization issuance, approval scope and replay rejection, receipt ingestion with hash verification, and an append-only, hash-linked audit log. Level 3 (Governed Executor/Runtime) enforces the trust boundary at the point of action: refusing governed work without a valid, verified authorization record. Fail-closed behavior is a protocol invariant at every level, not a configuration option: invalid, unknown, expired, tampered, or unauthorized transactions are rejected, and ambiguity resolves to denial. Conformance also constrains what an implementation may say about its own results. A report that names a verdict without naming the scope it covered is non-conforming, at every level. 9. Transport Independence ZTIP conformance is not concerned with how envelopes are delivered. An envelope may travel over an API call, a file, a message queue, a version-control pull request, or any other channel; governance is enforced at the envelope level. The fact that a message arrived over a secure channel does not make it authorized. The authorization record governs; the transport does not. McCormack Expires 20 April 2027 [Page 11] Internet-Draft ZTIP October 2026 10. Implementation Status This section records the state of implementation at the time of writing, in the spirit of [RFC7942] , and is not part of the protocol. An open-source reference runtime implements the canonicalization, hashing, envelope verification, and bundle verification rules described here, with a command-line interface that hashes and verifies envelopes and bundles and exits non-zero on any finding. A conformance corpus of ten lifecycle examples with recomputable hashes is published alongside the JSON Schemas, and the schemas alone accept that corpus. The rules in Section 7 were derived from defects found in that runtime: in each case the tool reported a verified result over content it had not established the scope of. Continuous integration executes the runtime against the corpus, which had previously been validated only for schema and JSON syntax conformance. Current status, test matrix, and open questions are maintained at [ZTIP-SPEC] . 11. Security Considerations ZTIP's guarantees are scoped to what hash-bound envelopes and independent verification can provide. Integrity protection detects tampering with any envelope content after issuance, including the declared checks; it does not by itself authenticate actors, and v1 leaves signature and key-management schemes to deployment profiles. The independence requirement removes the executor from the trust base for completion claims; its strength therefore depends on the actual independence and correctness of the verifying authority and the declared checks. Poorly chosen verification requirements verify the wrong thing faithfully. Validity windows and expiry depend on reasonably synchronized clocks. Denial of service against the control plane degrades the ability to authorize new work but, by the fail-closed invariant, never converts into unauthorized execution. Envelopes are cleartext JSON by default; deployments handling sensitive payloads SHOULD apply channel or storage protection appropriate to their environment, noting that encryption is deliberately not a precondition for envelope processing or audit. A verification tool is itself part of the attack surface, and an overstated verification report is the failure this revision is most concerned with. An adversary who cannot alter a sealed envelope may still be able to shape what a verifier examines: submit an empty set, a wrapper whose own envelope goes unchecked, a receipt whose request is absent, a second request that shadows the first, a result stored under an annotation field that the seal does not cover, or an object with a duplicated member name that two parsers read differently. In McCormack Expires 20 April 2027 [Page 12] Internet-Draft ZTIP October 2026 each case every hash presented checks out and the honest answer is "scope not established". An implementation that answers "verified" has been used as a laundering step for an unverified claim. The rules in Section 7 exist to close that gap, and they are stated as reporting duties as well as verdicts: a verdict without its scope is not a usable security statement. Consumers of a verification report SHOULD treat the report's declared scope -- how many envelopes were verified, how many references resolved, what content was carried outside the envelopes, and whether chain linkage was verified -- as part of the result, and SHOULD fail closed when that scope is absent. 12. IANA Considerations This document has no IANA actions. 13. References 13.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8785] Rundgren, A., Jordan, B., and S. Erdtman, "JSON Canonicalization Scheme (JCS)", RFC 8785, DOI 10.17487/RFC8785, June 2020, . 13.2. Informative References [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, . [ZTIP-SPEC] McCormack, C., "ZTIP: Zero Trust Intelligence Protocol -- Specification, Schemas, Examples, and Reference Runtime", 2026, . McCormack Expires 20 April 2027 [Page 13] Internet-Draft ZTIP October 2026 Changes from draft-mccormack-ztip-00 This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. No change was made to the integrity hash rule, to the envelope version field name, or to the five envelope types. Every change below either states a limit that was always true or specifies behavior an implementation must not get wrong when verifying more than one envelope at a time. * New Section 5.2 states the three questions integrity verification does not answer -- authenticity, whether a declared check ran, and whether the record is complete -- and forbids presenting a hash check as answering any of them. New Section 5.1 states, correspondingly, what recomputing a hash does establish. * New Section 7 specifies the fail-closed rules for verifying a set of envelopes together: envelope-over-wrapper precedence on any declared envelope field, refusal of an empty bundle, reference resolution scoped by transaction_id, resolution of the human- approval binding site and not only the top-level reference, one transaction request and one terminal outcome per transaction, no succeeded receipt that contradicts its own recorded checks, the envelope contract that content must satisfy before a self-computed hash may be called verified, verification under the rules the envelope declares, disclosure of content carried beside the envelopes, rejection of a document with a duplicated member name, and the duty to report the counts actually verified and resolved. * New Section 6.4 requires a succeeded receipt to record at least one structured verification result naming the check and its outcome, states that a result carried under an annotation field is not recorded because the seal does not cover it, and makes identifying the verifying authority a producer obligation whose absence is an audit gap rather than a verification failure. * Section 4 and Section 8 carry the envelope-over-wrapper precedence rule and the bundle rules into Level 1 conformance, and add that a report naming a verdict without naming its scope is non- conforming. * Section 11 adds the verification tool itself as attack surface: the ways an adversary can shape what a verifier examines without altering a sealed envelope, and the corresponding advice that consumers treat a report's declared scope as part of its result. McCormack Expires 20 April 2027 [Page 14] Internet-Draft ZTIP October 2026 * New Section 10 records the reference runtime, the ten-example conformance corpus, and the fact that the rules in this revision were derived from defects found in that runtime. * Definitions added for Bundle and Annotation field; the abstract and introduction updated to name the new material. Acknowledgements The specification this document summarizes is developed in the open; see the repository for history and contributions. Author's Address Chad McCormack Zero Trust Intelligence Email: chad@bitscon.net URI: https://zerotrustintelligence.io McCormack Expires 20 April 2027 [Page 15]