Status and open decisions
Draft-01 defines the core contract. The schemas, recorded examples, and experimental clients can be checked locally. No production host or binding is released.
The next step is a persistent example host, one specified binding, and tests with both clients. That will put the recovery rules under real failure conditions.
Report an ambiguity, missing failure case, or integration constraint.
Open decisions
| Topic | Current position | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| First transport binding | None selected | Which transport lets you test an existing actor with the least adaptation? |
| First application profile | Counter is illustrative | Which useful agent or workflow contract should be specified first? |
| Retention | All records remain for the session lifetime | What bounded retention and recovery rules will implementations need? |
| Data values | Safe integers; exact fractions use profile strings | Does this restriction fit the intended applications? |
| Command identity | Unique across sessions in one host authority | Is this scope practical for independent clients? |
| Uncertainty | Terminal and immutable | Can a separate reconciliation command preserve the original evidence? |
| Multiple clients | Shared history and independent cursors | Which additional conflict rules belong in application profiles? |
No presence, shared editing, transport, or cancellation proposal is a core feature merely because an application needs it.
Report enough detail
Include the draft and source commit, requirement ID or message, a small example, the observed ambiguity, and expected behavior. State whether the issue affects a client, host, profile, or binding.
The coverage index separates implemented checks from planned runtime cases. Tests can also contain defects; report a test expectation that conflicts with a requirement.