I am reading the specs and try to understand why this begs a new protocol when GNAP was recently introduced and approved?
Sounds like they basically do the same thing.
Have you had a chance looking into GNAP? Is this a subset of that protocol, but under a different brand?
I don’t mean to troll, just wanted to better understand the intent and maybe point you to look into a robust protocol by the IETF.
This protocol takes the core parts (key-bound identities, negotiated JSON grants, and asynchronous flows) and strips other items, and simply does some”backed in” setup for agents (as it strips some browser redirects and other irrelevant items).
Which i guess it’s fine. No need to fully implement gnap for agents. But why calling by a different protocol name?
I am reading the specs and try to understand why this begs a new protocol when GNAP was recently introduced and approved?
Sounds like they basically do the same thing.
Have you had a chance looking into GNAP? Is this a subset of that protocol, but under a different brand?
I don’t mean to troll, just wanted to better understand the intent and maybe point you to look into a robust protocol by the IETF.
This protocol takes the core parts (key-bound identities, negotiated JSON grants, and asynchronous flows) and strips other items, and simply does some”backed in” setup for agents (as it strips some browser redirects and other irrelevant items).
Which i guess it’s fine. No need to fully implement gnap for agents. But why calling by a different protocol name?