Protocol version

ANP 1.1 is the default latest version. ANP 1.0 remains available as an archive.

ANP Profile 3: Direct Messaging Base Semantics (Final Revision)

Document ID: ANP-P3
Title: Direct Messaging Base Semantics
Status: Draft
Version: 0.2.1 (Final Revision)
Language: English
Applicability: This Profile applies to the basic direct messaging semantics between Agents and does not include the end-to-end encryption algorithm itself.

1. Purpose

This Profile defines the Direct Messaging Base Semantics layer of ANP, stipulating:

How to express agent-to-agent direct messages;
Minimum interoperable fields and content model of direct messaging message;
Success Semantics, idempotent semantics and ordering semantics of direct messaging message;
How to run the direct messaging message independently in non-E2EE mode;
How to express sender identity authentication based on did:wba and cross-domain origin proof;
How Direct E2EE Profile is superimposed on the business semantics of this Profile.

This Profile does not define:

Specific E2EE algorithm;
Device or internal copy concept;
History pull;
Read status;
presence;
Agent internal synchronization;
Large object ciphertext format.

2. Terminology and Normative Conventions

2.1 Normative Keywords

In this article, MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, NOT RECOMMENDED, MAY, OPTIONAL are interpreted as normative requirements according to their capitalized form.

2.2 Terminology

Direct Message: An application layer message sent from one Agent to another Agent.
Sender Agent: The Agent that initiated direct.send, identified by outer params.meta.sender_did.
Recipient Agent: The target Agent of direct.send, identified by the outer params.meta.target.did.
Ingress Service: The main entrance service exposed by the target Agent to the outside world, used to receive direct messages.
Conversation: Application layer conversation context between sender and receiver; whether stable conversation_id exists is determined by the business layer.
Accepted: The message has been accepted by the target Agent's entry service and entered its processing boundary.
Rejected: The message was rejected at the protocol layer and did not enter the processing boundary of the target Agent.
Origin Proof: Application layer origin proof generated by the sender Agent based on did:wba JSON bearer authentication.
Hop Authentication: Transport layer/request layer identity authentication between a certain hop service to service and Agent to service.
Logical Target URI: To enable application layer signatures to remain stable across relays, a logical target URI defined globally by P1 Appendix A.

3. Design Principles

3.1 Agent is the end point of the protocol

The protocol endpoint of ANP Direct Messaging is the Agent, not the device, terminal, session replica, or internal execution unit.

As long as the target Agent's portal service accepts the message, the delivery mission of this Profile will be completed. How the target Agent internally synchronizes to how many replicas, how many executors, or how many devices, does not fall within the interoperability scope of this Profile.

3.2 Separation of Base semantics and Security Overlay

This Profile only defines business semantics and message semantics; if Direct E2EE Profile is subsequently added, then:

The business action is still direct.send;
direct messaging object is still sender_did -> recipient_did;
Content types and application semantics are still defined by this Profile;
Additional cryptographic objects, session state and security bindings are defined by the E2EE Profile.

3.3 Minimum Success Semantics

In this Profile, a successful direct.send only means:

The target Agent's portal service has accepted the message;
The message has entered the protocol processing boundary of the target Agent.

It does not mean that the target Agent has processed application payload, has been presented to the user, or has completed internal persistence.

The "minimum success semantics" of P3 can easily be misunderstood as "the peer has already read the message". The following sequence diagram places the sender, the outbound-domain service, the target ingress service, and the target Agent on the same path, making the success boundary explicit.

mermaid

sequenceDiagram
participant A as Sender Agent
participant AS as Sender-domain service
participant BS as Target-domain ingress service
participant B as Receiver Agent

A->>AS: direct.send
AS->>BS: Forward original direct.send cross-domain
BS->>BS: Validate target / idempotence / origin_proof
BS-->>AS: accepted = true
AS-->>A: Return success
Note over BS: Success only means ingress accepted
BS-->>B: direct.incoming

Figure P3-1: End-to-end sequence of direct.send (non-normative).

Therefore, success in this Profile only answers whether the target Agent's ingress service accepted the message. It does not answer whether the user has read it, whether it has been displayed, or whether persistence has completed inside the peer.

3.4 Non-Goals

This Profile does not attempt to provide:

End-to-end confidentiality;
Multi-device consistency;
Global strict order;
History replayable semantics;
Device-level proof of delivery.

3.5 Separation of origin proof and hop authentication

In a cross-domain scenario, direct.send may involve at least two types of authentication:

origin proof (Origin Proof): generated by the private key corresponding to sender_did, proving that "this business message was sent by the sender Agent";
hop authentication (Hop Authentication): Generated by the one-hop caller of the current connection, proving "which service or agent submitted this network request to the next hop."

This Profile requires:

direct.send's business origin proof MUST remain stable across forwarding chains;
Service level authentication MAY change for any hop;
The recipient MUST NOT presume the identity of the business originator of meta.sender_did based solely on the identity of the upstream service.

4. Profile identification and dependencies

4.1 Profile name

The standard name of this Profile is:

anp.direct.base.v1

4.2 Dependencies

This Profile MUST depend on the following Profiles:

anp.core.binding.v1
anp.identity.discovery.v1

4.3 Security Profile

When this Profile is used as the basic direct messaging Profile running independently:

meta.profile MUST equal anp.direct.base.v1
meta.security_profile MUST equal transport-protected

If a subsequent Direct E2EE Overlay reuses the business actions and application semantics of this Profile, then:

Corresponding Overlay MUST clearly explains how to overlay security objects on top of direct.send semantics;
Receiver MUST NOT silently downgrade from high security profile to transport-protected without explicit negotiation;
When meta.profile = "anp.direct.e2ee.v1", the mandatory requirements for auth.origin_proof in this Profile are overridden by the Direct E2EE Profile;
This coverage is deliberately designed: direct-e2ee gives priority to retaining stronger deniability. The sender identity authentication is mainly undertaken by the E2EE session establishment material, session binding and message AAD, and is no longer required to use P3's application layer origin_proof by default.

5. Direct addressing and session model

5.1 Target type

For direct.send, meta.target.kind MUST be "agent".
meta.target.did MUST be a parsable agent_did.

If target.kind is not "agent", the receiver MUST return anp.invalid_target_binding.

5.2 Sender and Receiver

Once direct.send:

There MUST be only one sender Agent;
There MUST be only one receiver Agent;
MUST NOT broadcast directly to multiple target Agents.

5.3 `conversation_id`

This Profile MAY use conversation_id to represent the application layer context between the sender and receiver.

If conversation_id exists:

it MUST be a string;
it MUST NOT be interpreted as a device, session replica, or internal executor ID;
It MAY be generated by the sender, or determined by the business logic negotiation of both parties;
It MUST NOT act as a unique security context or anti-replay identifier.

5.4 Agent internal implementation is invisible

The following internal details of the receiver MUST NOT be exposed as wire protocol interoperability semantics:

Number of internal queues;
Number of internal copies;
Number of internal workflow nodes;
Number of internal devices;
Internal forwarding path.

6. Content Model

6.1 Content Type

meta.content_type MUST for direct.send exists.

In Direct Base, body is a structured hosting container; meta.content_type represents the content type of the main business payload in the container, not the type of the JSON container object itself. This section follows P1’s unified definition of meta.content_type.

This Profile minimum interoperability MUST support the following content types:

text/plain
application/json
application/anp-attachment-manifest+json

Implementers MAY support more content types, but MUST return anp.unsupported_content_type for unsupported content types.

6.2 `body` structure

direct.send of body MUST be an object and can contain the following fields:

6.2.1 `conversation_id`

Type: string
Requirements: MAY
Semantics: Application layer session context identification
Note: This is a display and merge prompt field and does not belong to the minimum interoperability strong constraint.

6.2.2 `reply_to_message_id`

Type: string
Requirements: MAY
Semantics: Indicates the previous message to which this message replies

6.2.3 `annotations`

Type: Object
Requirements: MAY
Semantics: application layer additional metadata customized by the sender
Rules:
- Relay service MUST NOT unauthorized modification;
- Unrecognized field MAY be ignored by the receiver;
- It should not be used to covertly carry hidden control semantics that would alter authorization, security decisions, or routing decisions.

6.2.4 `text`

Type: string
Requirement: MUST when content_type = "text/plain"
Rule: When using text, payload and payload_b64u MUST NOT occur simultaneously.

6.2.5 `payload`

Type: JSON object
Requirement: MUST when content_type is of type JSON
Rules: payload SHOULD directly represents the application object; MUST NOT use dual serialization of "JSON string embedded in JSON".

6.2.6 `payload_b64u`

Type: string
Requirement: When the content is a binary extension or a private extension object MAY
Rules:
- Must be no padding base64url;
- When using payload_b64u, text and payload MUST NOT appear simultaneously.

6.3 Payload Field Mutual Exclusion Rules

Among direct.send, text, payload and payload_b64u:

Exactly one of these fields MUST be present;
If more than one appears, the recipient MUST reject the request;
If none of the three are present, the receiving party MUST reject the request.

6.4 `auth` object

When meta.profile = "anp.direct.base.v1" and meta.security_profile = "transport-protected", direct.send's params MUST contain the auth object.

The proof bearer rules, Signed Request Object and signature component mapping in this section MUST reuse the unified definition in P1 Appendix A; P3 no longer defines independent proof field names, independent Signed Payload structures or local @target-uri mappings.

The recommended structure is as follows:

json

{
  "auth": {
    "scheme": "anp-rfc9421-origin-proof-v1",
    "origin_proof": {
      "contentDigest": "sha-256=:BASE64_SHA256_DIGEST:",
      "signatureInput": "sig1=(\"@method\" \"@target-uri\" \"content-digest\");created=1733402096;expires=1733402156;nonce=\"abc123\";keyid=\"did:wba:example.com:user:alice:e1_<fingerprint>#key-1\"",
      "signature": "sig1=:BASE64_SIGNATURE:"
    }
  }
}

Rules:

auth.scheme MUST equal anp-rfc9421-origin-proof-v1
auth.origin_proof MUST exist
auth itself MUST NOT participate in the calculation of contentDigest

6.5 Binding to the Shared Signed Request Object

auth.origin_proof.contentDigest MUST bind the shared Signed Request Object defined in P1 Appendix A.

For direct.send:

method MUST equal direct.send
meta.target.kind MUST equal agent
meta.target.did MUST equal the target recipient Agent DID
meta.message_id and meta.content_type MUST exist

6.6 Reference to the Global Component Mapping

direct.send MUST use the global signature component mapping defined in P1 Appendix A.

Therefore:

The verifier MUST rebuild @method from method = "direct.send"
The verifier MUST reconstruct @target-uri = anp://agent/<pct-encoded meta.target.did> from meta.target.kind = "agent" and meta.target.did
The above results come from the global rules of P1, and are not a set of local mappings independently defined by P3

7. Standard method

7.1 `direct.send`

7.1.1 Semantics

direct.send indicates that the sender Agent sends a direct message to the target Agent.

7.1.2 Request Requirements

A compliant direct.send request MUST satisfy:

method = "direct.send"
meta.profile = "anp.direct.base.v1"
meta.security_profile = "transport-protected"
meta.sender_did MUST exist
meta.target.kind = "agent"
meta.target.did MUST exist
meta.operation_id MUST exist
meta.message_id MUST exist
meta.content_type MUST exist
body MUST meet the content mutual exclusion rules of this Profile
auth.scheme MUST equal anp-rfc9421-origin-proof-v1
auth.origin_proof MUST exist and binds Signed Request Object

7.1.3 Successful Response

result MUST for Successful Response contains at least:

accepted: Boolean, and MUST be true
message_id: consistent with meta.message_id in the request
operation_id: consistent with meta.operation_id in the request
target_did: Target Agent DID
accepted_at: RFC 3339 time string

A successful response MAY contain:

conversation_id

7.1.4 Failure conditions

The receiver MUST reject direct.send under the following circumstances:

The target DID does not exist or is unreachable;
The caller of one hop of the current connection has not passed the caller authentication of this hop;
Content type not supported;
The request body does not comply with the content mutual exclusion rules;
The target policy prohibits this message;
The request violates the requirements of security profile;
auth.origin_proof is missing, invalid, expired or suspected to be replayed;
The DID to which keyid belongs in auth.origin_proof is inconsistent with meta.sender_did.

7.2 `direct.incoming` (required Notification)

7.2.1 Semantics

direct.incoming is the standard push Notification of this Profile, which is used by an ANP Endpoint to push a direct message to the target Agent that has been accepted by the target ingress. It belongs to the minimum interoperability capability of P3.

7.2.2 Scope of use

This method MUST be implemented;
It is the standard push path, but does not change direct.send's Success Semantics;
An implementation that conforms to this Profile MUST be able to send, receive, or handle direct.incoming.

7.2.3 Constraints

direct.incoming MUST sent as Notification;
The receiver MUST NOT return a JSON-RPC Response to it;
params.meta.profile MUST equal anp.direct.base.v1;
params.meta.security_profile MUST equal security profile when original direct.send is accepted;
params.meta.target.kind MUST be "agent";
params.meta.target.did MUST be equal to the notification recipient DID;
params.meta.sender_did MUST be equal to the logical sending subject DID of the original business message;
params.meta.operation_id MUST equal original direct.send.meta.operation_id;
params.meta.message_id MUST equal original direct.send.meta.message_id;
params.meta.content_type MUST equal to meta.content_type of the original business message;
params.body MUST carry the service payload consistent with the original message;
If params.auth is present, then:
- params.auth.scheme MUST equal anp-rfc9421-origin-proof-v1;
- params.auth.origin_proof MUST be a lossless copy of the original origin_proof;
- The intermediate service MUST NOT regenerate a new business proof.

8. Delivery, idempotence and ordering semantics

8.1 Acceptance semantics

Once direct.send returns successfully, it simply means:

The target Agent's portal service has accepted the message;
The sender MAY stop retries for the same operation_id unless local policy requires otherwise.

8.2 Idempotence and deduplication

The receiver MUST make an idempotent judgment based on the following minimum set:

sender_did
target.did
method
operation_id

For message-level duplication, the receiver SHOULD be further based on:

sender_did
target.did
message_id

Perform duplicate identification.

8.3 Ordering Semantics

This Profile does not provide global strict ordering guarantees.

For direct messages:

The implementation party MAY perform best-effort sequential processing within the same conversation_id;
The cross-domain interoperability layer MUST NOT assume that the network or the service will naturally provide strict FIFO ordering.

8.4 Retry

For direct.send, when the sender retries the same message:

operation_id MUST remain unchanged;
message_id MUST remain unchanged;
The business payload MUST remain semantically equivalent.

For direct.incoming, if the service chooses to push the same accepted message again:

params.meta.operation_id SHOULD remain unchanged;
params.meta.message_id SHOULD remain unchanged;
params.body SHOULD remain semantically equivalent to the original notification.

For direct.send and direct.incoming, whether to resend automatically after a transmission failure MAY be determined by the service according to local policy; this profile MUST NOT require resending, a fixed retry count, or a fixed backoff algorithm.

For implementers, the fields of direct.send are often not the real source of mistakes; the hard part is deciding whether to check operation_id or message_id first during retries. The following diagram makes the minimum-interoperability decision order explicit.

mermaid

flowchart TD
R1[Receive direct.send]
R1 --> K1{Does (sender_did,target.did,method,operation_id)<br/>already exist?}

K1 -->|No| P[Process normally]
P --> M1{Is message_id duplicated?}
M1 -->|No| S[Write idempotence record and return accepted]
M1 -->|Yes| D[Apply duplicate-message policy]

K1 -->|Yes| K2{Is the request semantically equivalent?}
K2 -->|Yes| E[Return the same or equivalent result]
K2 -->|No| C[anp.idempotency_conflict]

Figure P3-2: Direct-message idempotence and retry decision (non-normative).

Implementations should first hit operation-level idempotence and then handle message-level duplicate detection; otherwise, semantically equivalent requests may be incorrectly treated as conflicts during network retries or cross-domain replay-protection scenarios.

9. Security and Policy

9.1 Transmission protection requirements

This Profile, when run independently, MUST rely on a certified secure transport layer. Unprotected bare HTTP, bare WebSocket, or other unauthenticated channel MUST NOT used.

9.2 Sender identity authentication of `direct.send`

For any direct.send that declares meta.sender_did under meta.profile = "anp.direct.base.v1":

Sender MUST provide auth.origin_proof;
Receiver portal service MUST validate auth.origin_proof according to did:wba specification;
The receiver MUST verify that the DID to which keyid belongs in auth.origin_proof is consistent with meta.sender_did;
The receiver MUST verify that the authentication method pointed to by keyid is authorized by the authentication relationship of the DID document;
For a path-type e1_ DID, the receiver MUST perform a full DID binding check and MUST NOT consider the DID valid simply because there is an available public key in authentication.

Minimum requirements for e1_ DID include:

DID Document top-level proof MUST exist;
proof MUST pass the Data Integrity verification required by did:wba;
proof.verificationMethod MUST point to an Ed25519 binding key authorized by the document;
The receiver MUST use the public key corresponding to proof.verificationMethod to recalculate the RFC 7638 thumbprint;
The recalculation result MUST be completely consistent with the e1_ fingerprint in the DID path.

In other words, the validity of meta.sender_did is not established if "any authentication key in the DID document can be verified", but is established if "the request proof, DID path fingerprint and bound public key are all consistent".

9.3 Verification steps for `origin_proof`

The receiver’s verification steps for auth.origin_proof refer to the unified definition in Appendix A of P1

9.4 Cross-Domain forwarding and upstream service authentication

In a cross-domain deployment:

The original auth.origin_proof MUST be forwarded with the message, and MUST NOT be overridden by the intermediate service;
The receiving target domain MUST directly verify auth.origin_proof;
Implementations MUST additionally perform service-level identity authentication at each service hop;
The upstream service MAY verify auth.origin_proof locally before forwarding, but successful local verification MUST NOT exempt the target domain from independently verifying it.

9.5 Access Token optimization (non-normative)

The access token process MAY based on did:wba is used to optimize repeated requests, but it does not belong to the minimum interoperability main line of this Profile.

For direct.send:

An access token MUST NOT replace auth.origin_proof as the cross-domain origin proof;
sender-constrained access token SHOULD take precedence over ordinary Bearer token;
The specific profile, issuance format and constraint mechanism of the access token can be defined by higher-level deployment specifications or implementation documents.

9.6 Security Profile Upgrade and Downgrade

If an Agent's policy requires direct-e2ee:

The sender MUST use the corresponding Direct E2EE Profile;
The receiver MUST reject when it receives direct.send for transport-protected;
Receiver MUST NOT silently accept weaker security profile without explicit negotiation.

9.7 Binding points with Overlay

Subsequent Direct E2EE Overlay SHOULD include at least the following fields into the authenticated context:

sender_did
target.did
message_id
conversation_id (if present)
content_type
security_profile
auth.origin_proof.contentDigest or equivalent origin proof digest

10. Privacy Considerations

10.1 Minimum Metadata Principle

The sender SHOULD only sends the minimum metadata necessary to enable interoperability.

10.2 Do not expose internal topology

Any implementation MUST NOT exposed through this Profile:

Number of internal equipment;
Number of internal copies;
Internal workflow topology;
Internal delivery routes.

10.3 Relay minimum knowledge

The relay or ingress service SHOULD check only the minimum fields necessary for protocol interoperability;
If the application payload does not need to be understood by it, then SHOULD treat it as an opaque payload.

11. Profile specific errors (recommended)

On the premise of following the ANP Core public error model, this Profile recommends the following anp_code:

`code`	`anp_code`	Meaning
2000	`direct.recipient_unreachable`	The target Agent is temporarily unreachable
2001	`direct.policy_violation`	The target policy rejected the message
2002	`direct.invalid_payload_shape`	direct messagingpayload Illegal structure
2003	`direct.conversation_conflict`	Session context conflict
2004	`direct.security_mode_required`	Higher goals security profile
2005	`direct.invalid_origin_proof`	Sender origin proof is invalid, expired or missing
2006	`direct.origin_did_mismatch`	The DIDs to which `meta.sender_did` and `keyid` belong are inconsistent
2007	`direct.origin_proof_replayed`	The sender origin proof is suspected to be replayed

12. Minimum Interoperability Requirements

An implementation conforming to this Profile MUST support at least:

direct.send
direct.incoming
target.kind = "agent"
text/plain
application/json
application/anp-attachment-manifest+json
Mutual exclusion rules for text / payload / payload_b64u
Idempotent processing of message_id and operation_id
Submission and verification of auth.origin_proof
Signed Request Object normalization and summary calculation rules defined in this Profile
Operation mode based on secure transmission

conversation_id, reply_to_message_id and annotations are commonly used optional fields, but do not belong to the strong minimum interoperability constraints of v1.

13. Example

13.1 Text message example

json

{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "id": "req-20001",
  "method": "direct.send",
  "params": {
    "meta": {
      "profile": "anp.direct.base.v1",
      "security_profile": "transport-protected",
      "sender_did": "did:example:agent-a",
      "target": {
        "kind": "agent",
        "did": "did:example:agent-b"
      },
      "operation_id": "msg-20001",
      "message_id": "msg-20001",
      "created_at": "2026-03-29T12:00:00Z",
      "content_type": "text/plain"
    },
    "auth": {
      "scheme": "anp-rfc9421-origin-proof-v1",
      "origin_proof": {
        "contentDigest": "sha-256=:BASE64_SHA256_OF_SIGNED_REQUEST_OBJECT:",
        "signatureInput": "sig1=(\"@method\" \"@target-uri\" \"content-digest\");created=1774785600;expires=1774785660;nonce=\"n-20001\";keyid=\"did:example:agent-a#key-1\"",
        "signature": "sig1=:BASE64_SIGNATURE:"
      }
    },
    "body": {
      "conversation_id": "conv-01",
      "text": "hello from agent-a"
    }
  }
}

13.2 Example of attachment list

json

{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "id": "req-20002",
  "method": "direct.send",
  "params": {
    "meta": {
      "profile": "anp.direct.base.v1",
      "security_profile": "transport-protected",
      "sender_did": "did:example:agent-a",
      "target": {
        "kind": "agent",
        "did": "did:example:agent-b"
      },
      "operation_id": "msg-20002",
      "message_id": "msg-20002",
      "created_at": "2026-03-29T12:05:00Z",
      "content_type": "application/anp-attachment-manifest+json"
    },
    "auth": {
      "scheme": "anp-rfc9421-origin-proof-v1",
      "origin_proof": {
        "contentDigest": "sha-256=:BASE64_SHA256_OF_SIGNED_REQUEST_OBJECT:",
        "signatureInput": "sig1=(\"@method\" \"@target-uri\" \"content-digest\");created=1774785900;expires=1774785960;nonce=\"n-20002\";keyid=\"did:example:agent-a#key-1\"",
        "signature": "sig1=:BASE64_SIGNATURE:"
      }
    },
    "body": {
      "payload": {
        "attachments": [
          {
            "attachment_id": "att-001",
            "filename": "report.pdf",
            "mime_type": "application/pdf",
            "size": "1048576",
            "digest": {
              "alg": "sha-256",
              "value_b64u": "BASE64URL_DIGEST"
            },
            "access_info": {
              "object_uri": "https://objects.example.com/objects/obj-plain-001"
            },
            "encryption_info": {
              "mode": "none"
            }
          }
        ],
        "caption": "Please check the attachment"
      }
    }
  }
}

Note: This attachment list example is consistent with P7 and no longer explicitly carries the control plane service DID in access_info. The receiver should parse its public ANPMessageService based on the original message sender's DID before downloading, and then call attachment.get_download_ticket.

13.3 `direct.send` example with did:wba origin proof

json

{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "id": "req-direct-003",
  "method": "direct.send",
  "params": {
    "meta": {
      "profile": "anp.direct.base.v1",
      "security_profile": "transport-protected",
      "sender_did": "did:wba:a.example:agents:alice:e1_<fingerprint>",
      "target": {
        "kind": "agent",
        "did": "did:wba:b.example:agents:bob:e1_<fingerprint>"
      },
      "operation_id": "msg-direct-003",
      "message_id": "msg-direct-003",
      "content_type": "text/plain",
      "created_at": "2026-03-29T13:00:00Z"
    },
    "auth": {
      "scheme": "anp-rfc9421-origin-proof-v1",
      "origin_proof": {
        "contentDigest": "sha-256=:BASE64_SHA256_OF_SIGNED_REQUEST_OBJECT:",
        "signatureInput": "sig1=(\"@method\" \"@target-uri\" \"content-digest\");created=1774789200;expires=1774789260;nonce=\"n-001\";keyid=\"did:wba:a.example:agents:alice:e1_<fingerprint>#key-1\"",
        "signature": "sig1=:BASE64_SIGNATURE:"
      }
    },
    "body": {
      "text": "hello bob"
    }
  }
}

14. Registry Placeholder

Subsequent versions of this standard SHOULD establish the following registry:

Direct content type registry;
Direct error code registration form;
Direct Notification method registry.

15. Reference Implementation Notes (Non-Normative)

Implementers should adopt the following principles when implementing this Profile:

direct.send only answers "whether the target Agent accepts it" and does not answer "whether the end user reads it";
direct.incoming is a standard push path, but whether to automatically resend after a failure is up to the implementation to decide;
annotations and conversation_id are application convenience fields and should not be overly burdened with security or routing semantics;
The sender's origin proof must be layered with hop-level service authentication;
To simplify implementation, message class operations can usually use operation_id = message_id directly.

ANP Profile 3: Direct Messaging Base Semantics (Final Revision) ​

1. Purpose ​

2. Terminology and Normative Conventions ​

2.1 Normative Keywords ​

2.2 Terminology ​

3. Design Principles ​

3.1 Agent is the end point of the protocol ​

3.2 Separation of Base semantics and Security Overlay ​

3.3 Minimum Success Semantics ​

3.4 Non-Goals ​

3.5 Separation of origin proof and hop authentication ​

4. Profile identification and dependencies ​

4.1 Profile name ​

4.2 Dependencies ​

4.3 Security Profile ​

5. Direct addressing and session model ​

5.1 Target type ​

5.2 Sender and Receiver ​

5.3 conversation_id ​

5.4 Agent internal implementation is invisible ​

6. Content Model ​

6.1 Content Type ​

6.2 body structure ​

6.2.1 conversation_id ​

6.2.2 reply_to_message_id ​

6.2.3 annotations ​

6.2.4 text ​

6.2.5 payload ​

6.2.6 payload_b64u ​

6.3 Payload Field Mutual Exclusion Rules ​

6.4 auth object ​

6.5 Binding to the Shared Signed Request Object ​

6.6 Reference to the Global Component Mapping ​

7. Standard method ​

7.1 direct.send ​

7.1.1 Semantics ​

7.1.2 Request Requirements ​

7.1.3 Successful Response ​

7.1.4 Failure conditions ​

7.2 direct.incoming (required Notification) ​

7.2.1 Semantics ​

7.2.2 Scope of use ​

7.2.3 Constraints ​

8. Delivery, idempotence and ordering semantics ​

8.1 Acceptance semantics ​

8.2 Idempotence and deduplication ​

8.3 Ordering Semantics ​

8.4 Retry ​

9. Security and Policy ​

9.1 Transmission protection requirements ​

9.2 Sender identity authentication of direct.send ​

9.3 Verification steps for origin_proof ​

9.4 Cross-Domain forwarding and upstream service authentication ​

9.5 Access Token optimization (non-normative) ​

9.6 Security Profile Upgrade and Downgrade ​

9.7 Binding points with Overlay ​

10. Privacy Considerations ​

10.1 Minimum Metadata Principle ​

10.2 Do not expose internal topology ​

10.3 Relay minimum knowledge ​

11. Profile specific errors (recommended) ​

12. Minimum Interoperability Requirements ​

13. Example ​

13.1 Text message example ​

13.2 Example of attachment list ​

13.3 direct.send example with did:wba origin proof ​

14. Registry Placeholder ​

15. Reference Implementation Notes (Non-Normative) ​

ANP Profile 3: Direct Messaging Base Semantics (Final Revision)

1. Purpose

2. Terminology and Normative Conventions

2.1 Normative Keywords

2.2 Terminology

3. Design Principles

3.1 Agent is the end point of the protocol

3.2 Separation of Base semantics and Security Overlay

3.3 Minimum Success Semantics

3.4 Non-Goals

3.5 Separation of origin proof and hop authentication

4. Profile identification and dependencies

4.1 Profile name

4.2 Dependencies

4.3 Security Profile

5. Direct addressing and session model

5.1 Target type

5.2 Sender and Receiver

5.3 `conversation_id`

5.4 Agent internal implementation is invisible

6. Content Model

6.1 Content Type

6.2 `body` structure

6.2.1 `conversation_id`

6.2.2 `reply_to_message_id`

6.2.3 `annotations`

6.2.4 `text`

6.2.5 `payload`

6.2.6 `payload_b64u`

6.3 Payload Field Mutual Exclusion Rules

6.4 `auth` object

6.5 Binding to the Shared Signed Request Object

6.6 Reference to the Global Component Mapping

7. Standard method

7.1 `direct.send`

7.1.1 Semantics

7.1.2 Request Requirements

7.1.3 Successful Response

7.1.4 Failure conditions

7.2 `direct.incoming` (required Notification)

7.2.1 Semantics

7.2.2 Scope of use

7.2.3 Constraints

8. Delivery, idempotence and ordering semantics

8.1 Acceptance semantics

8.2 Idempotence and deduplication

8.3 Ordering Semantics

8.4 Retry

9. Security and Policy

9.1 Transmission protection requirements

9.2 Sender identity authentication of `direct.send`

9.3 Verification steps for `origin_proof`

9.4 Cross-Domain forwarding and upstream service authentication

9.5 Access Token optimization (non-normative)

9.6 Security Profile Upgrade and Downgrade

9.7 Binding points with Overlay

10. Privacy Considerations

10.1 Minimum Metadata Principle

10.2 Do not expose internal topology

10.3 Relay minimum knowledge

11. Profile specific errors (recommended)

12. Minimum Interoperability Requirements

13. Example

13.1 Text message example

13.2 Example of attachment list

13.3 `direct.send` example with did:wba origin proof

14. Registry Placeholder

15. Reference Implementation Notes (Non-Normative)