Partial Commit Is Not Finality: Composite Candidate Acts Across Multiple Finality Sinks
draft-das-composite-execution-finality-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Sangam Das | ||
| Last updated | 2026-09-16 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-das-composite-execution-finality-00
Individual Submission S. Das
Internet-Draft Independent
Intended status: Informational 16 September 2026
Expires: 20 March 2027
Partial Commit Is Not Finality: Composite Candidate Acts Across Multiple
Finality Sinks
draft-das-composite-execution-finality-00
Abstract
An agent, a payment orchestrator, or a control-plane applicator often
intends one Candidate Act that would become real only as several
consequences: a settlement post, a ledger write, a tool invoke, a
notification, a radio enable. [DAS-HANDLE] specifies verify,
consume, and receipt at one Finality Sink. It does not say what "the
act was permitted" means when sink S1 has consumed and posted and
sink S2 has rejected, timed out, or committed a different digest.
Existing distributed-transaction tools already address adjacent
problems. Two-phase commit, XA, sagas, TCC, transactional outbox,
and workflow engines coordinate steps. OAuth, WIMSE, RATS, and SCITT
still name identity, environment, and signed statements. None of
them, by themselves, bind N sink-local Execution Handles to one
composite Act Digest and require that no child consequence become
externally effective unless every required child reaches a defined
terminal state.
This document specifies Composite Candidate Acts, child handles, a
coordinator that may only prepare, a two-phase consume rule, and the
distinction between prevention (no child commits unless the composite
closes) and mitigation (compensate after a partial post).
Compensation is itself a Candidate Act. It is not a silent undo and
not a license to skip verify on the original child.
This is not a new consensus protocol and not a claim that XA is
obsolete. Profiles that cannot obtain prepare-from-every-sink MUST
NOT claim all-or-none prevention.
Three rejections are expected and are treated as design constraints.
"Saga plus handle is enough" is accepted when each saga step already
reconstructs the live child, consumes a child handle, and cannot log
SUCCESS after a required child rejects; this draft then shrinks to
join fields. Prepare across N sinks is a latency tax only if
consume-state is global; it is per child handle, and a no_prepare
mail or MCP child must use the mitigation profile rather than pretend
2PC. Child sinks reconstruct only their own pending effect, not a
Das Expires 20 March 2027 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Composite Execution Finality September 2026
mesh-wide CAD. Reviewers who would reject on saga, performance, or
reconstruction grounds are asked to read those sections before
discarding the document. Criticism, including "this should stay a
note in the handle draft," remains invited.
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/.
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 March 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. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Vulnerability: One Intent, Split Reality . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Existing Mechanisms Already Coordinate Steps . . . . . . 4
1.3. Residual Gap After a Single-Sink Handle . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4. What This Document Introduces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Conventions and Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Direct Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Motivating Scenario: Pay, Book, Notify . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Threat Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Goals and Non-Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Das Expires 20 March 2027 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Composite Execution Finality September 2026
7. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Composite Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Composite CAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Child Handles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.3. Composite Handle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Composite State Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Prepare, Commit, Abort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Phase 0: Reconstruct Each Child . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Phase 1: Prepare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.3. Phase 2: Commit or Abort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. Join Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
12. Compensation Is a New Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
13. Coordinator Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
14. Timeouts and Crash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
15. Formal Join . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
16. Illustrative Pseudocode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
17. Composition with Existing Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
18. Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
19. Anticipated Criticisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
19.1. Objection: Saga Plus Handle Is Enough . . . . . . . . . 15
19.2. Objection: Prepare Across N Sinks Is a Latency Tax . . . 16
19.3. Objection: Each Child Cannot Reconstruct a Unified
CAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
19.4. What Would Settle the Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
20. Industrial Relevance and Public-Roadmap Alignment . . . . . . 17
21. Questions to the IETF Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
22. Potential IETF Discussion Venues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
22.1. DISPATCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
22.2. OAuth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
22.3. WIMSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
22.4. RATS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
22.5. HTTPAPI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
22.6. SCITT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
22.7. SAAG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
22.8. No Presumed Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
23. Relationship to Other Execution-Finality Internet-Drafts . . 19
24. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
25. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
26. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
27. Criticism, Corrections, and Review Invited . . . . . . . . . 20
28. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
29. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
30. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Das Expires 20 March 2027 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Composite Execution Finality September 2026
1. Introduction
1.1. Vulnerability: One Intent, Split Reality
A composite intent C is authorized as a unit: pay vendor X AND write
the invoice AND notify finance. If the settlement sink consumes its
handle and posts, and the notification sink times out, operators
still say "the agent paid." The Candidate Act that was reviewed was
not the world that occurred. No child token was forged. The failure
is split effectuation of one intended act.
Intended C = { pay X, book invoice, notify finance }
+-- S1 SETTLEMENT consume + post EFFECTUATED
C ---+-- S2 CONTROL timeout NON_EFFECTIVE
+-- S3 TOOL never invoked NON_EFFECTIVE
Reviewed act: C
Occurred world: pay X only
Partial commit
!=
composite finality
Figure 1: Child S1 commits; child S2 never becomes effective
1.2. Existing Mechanisms Already Coordinate Steps
Two-phase commit and XA serialize prepare/commit across resource
managers. Sagas and TCC specify forward actions plus compensations.
Outbox and workflow engines order side effects. Those tools should
be used. They do not define an Execution Handle per child sink, do
not reconstruct each live child act, and do not make "compensation" a
second handled Candidate Act.
1.3. Residual Gap After a Single-Sink Handle
[DAS-HANDLE] closes possession-versus-authority at one boundary.
After that draft, each child can be locally correct and the composite
still wrong. Registries reserve COMPOSITE as a class and a sink type
[DAS-REG]. They do not specify the protocol.
1.4. What This Document Introduces
* Composite CAD with an ordered, explicit child list and a composite
Act Digest.
Das Expires 20 March 2027 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Composite Execution Finality September 2026
* One child Execution Handle per required sink, all bound to the
same composite id.
* Prepare / commit / abort on consume-state, with fail-closed
defaults.
* A coordinator role that cannot substitute for child sinks.
* Compensation as a new Candidate Act, not a hidden reverse of the
original handle.
2. Conventions and Requirements Language
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.
3. Direct Question
If C is the act that was authorized, and only a proper subset of C's
required children have become externally effective, was C
effectuated?
Prevention profile:
C is EFFECTUATED
iff every required child is EFFECTUATED
under handles bound to C
and no extra child effect is attributed to C.
Otherwise C remains NON_EFFECTIVE
even if some child already moved money or iron.
That last sentence is the operational cost. If a profile cannot
prevent the child post, it must not advertise all-or-none prevention.
4. Motivating Scenario: Pay, Book, Notify
An enterprise agent is allowed to settle a vendor invoice only as a
unit with the ERP booking and an audit mail. Settlement posts in 80
ms. ERP is in a change window. Mail is a third-party API with no
prepare. A coordinator that "retries notify later" has not
effectuated C. It has effectuated a different act: pay-without-book.
Das Expires 20 March 2027 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Composite Execution Finality September 2026
Authorized C17 = pay + book + notify [all required]
After S1 post, S2 reject:
world = paid, not booked
C17 = still NON_EFFECTIVE
C18 = "notify later about a payment already posted"
is a new CAD
and needs its own handle
Figure 2: Why retry-later is a different Candidate Act
5. Threat Model
The attacker need not forge handles. Relevant failures:
* Child reordering so an optional notify is treated as required, or
the reverse.
* Coordinator crash after S1 prepare and before S2 prepare.
* S2 commit of a mutated child CAD under the same composite id.
* Calling compensation on S1 without a new handle.
* Declaring success from the coordinator receipt while a required
child is still PENDING.
* Using a saga log as proof that no child effect exists.
6. Goals and Non-Goals
Goal: define when a multi-sink Candidate Act may be called
EFFECTUATED, PREPARED, ABORTED, or COMPENSATING, using the objects in
[DAS-HANDLE].
Non-goals: a new Paxos/Raft; replacing XA or workflow engines;
requiring every SaaS to implement prepare; claiming exactly-once
delivery across the open Internet; automatic legal netting of a
posted payment.
7. Terminology
*Composite Candidate Act (C):* A Candidate Act whose intended
consequence is the conjunction of two or more child consequences.
*Child Act C_i:* The component that one sink would effectuate.
Das Expires 20 March 2027 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Composite Execution Finality September 2026
*Required child:* A child that MUST reach EFFECTUATED for C to reach
EFFECTUATED.
*Optional child:* A child that MUST NOT block C if it fails, and MUST
NOT be advertised as part of C's authorized unit if it is skipped.
Optional children SHOULD be separate acts.
*Coordinator:* The component that records composite state. It is not
a Finality Sink for a child effect unless it is also that child's
sink.
*Prepare:* Child sink has verified the live child act, reserved
consume-state, and promises not to post until commit or abort.
*Compensation act:* A new Candidate Act that would reverse or contain
a child effect that already escaped. It uses a new handle.
8. Composite Objects
8.1. Composite CAD
A composite CAD is a CAD whose consequence_class and coordinator
sink_type are COMPOSITE [DAS-REG]. It MUST list children explicitly.
composite_cad = {
candidate_act_id,
composite_act_digest, // over canonical child list
consequence_class: "COMPOSITE",
children: [
{ child_id, cad_i, sink_i, required: true|false },
...
],
join_rule: "ALL_REQUIRED",
expires_at,
generations
}
ALL_REQUIRED:
every child with required=true must EFFECTUATE
for C to EFFECTUATE.
QUORUM / BEST_EFFORT:
MUST NOT be used in a prevention profile
for FINANCIAL, PHYSICAL, RF, CLINICAL, MODEL_RELEASE.
Das Expires 20 March 2027 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Composite Execution Finality September 2026
8.2. Child Handles
Each required child has its own Execution Handle EH_i issued by the
PED. EH_i MUST bind:
* act_digest of child CAD_i
* sink_id of S_i
* composite_id = C.candidate_act_id
* reuse_policy compatible with the child class
A child handle MUST NOT be accepted at a sink whose consume would not
serve that composite_id. Presenting EH_i for a standalone payment
that is not C is EF-023 or EF-040 [DAS-REG].
8.3. Composite Handle
The coordinator MAY hold a composite handle EH_C whose digest is the
composite Act Digest. EH_C authorizes the coordinator to drive
prepare/commit/abort. It does not authorize S_i to post.
9. Composite State Machine
Das Expires 20 March 2027 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Composite Execution Finality September 2026
issue
|
v
NON_EFFECTIVE
|
children verify
v
PREPARED -------- abort / timeout ------> ABORTED
|
all required commit
v
EFFECTUATED
If any required child already posted
and others cannot:
EFFECTUATED is forbidden
|
v
COMPENSATING -- compensation C' --> CONTAINED
|
+--> UNKNOWN (compensation also split)
Prevention profile forbids entering COMPENSATING
because a required child posted before join.
Figure 3: States of C, distinct from child sink states
Child sinks use the handle draft states locally: verify, consume
(here: reserve / commit / abort), receipt. C's state is a join of
those receipts, not a vote by the model that proposed C.
10. Prepare, Commit, Abort
10.1. Phase 0: Reconstruct Each Child
Each S_i MUST reconstruct live child CAD_i from the pending local
effect, not from a coordinator-supplied blob alone [DAS-HANDLE].
Coordinator-supplied CAD_i is a hint. Digest mismatch is EF-023.
10.2. Phase 1: Prepare
Prepare is consume-state reservation without external effect.
Das Expires 20 March 2027 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Composite Execution Finality September 2026
S_i.prepare(EH_i, live_cad_i):
verify handle and reconstruct digest
if fail: receipt REJECTED, do not reserve
if consume-store down: EF-081, fail closed
reserve EH_i (not yet posted)
return PREPARED
Coordinator:
if any required child not PREPARED
before deadline:
abort all prepared children
C = ABORTED
A sink that cannot reserve without posting (typical third-party mail
or card API) MUST be declared no_prepare=true. A composite that
includes a required no_prepare sink MUST NOT use the prevention
profile. It MAY use mitigation: post last, or accept COMPENSATING.
10.3. Phase 2: Commit or Abort
Coordinator.commit(C):
require all required children PREPARED
require EH_C still current
for each S_i:
S_i.commit(EH_i) // post + CONSUMED
if all required EFFECTUATED:
C = EFFECTUATED
emit composite receipt
else:
// prevention profile: this branch
// should be unreachable if prepare held
C = COMPENSATING
Coordinator.abort(C):
for each PREPARED S_i:
S_i.abort(EH_i) // release reserve, no post
C = ABORTED
11. Join Rules
+===================+====================+========================+
| Rule | C EFFECTUATED when | Prevention claim |
+===================+====================+========================+
| ALL_REQUIRED | every required | Yes, if every required |
| | child EFFECTUATED | sink supports prepare |
+-------------------+--------------------+------------------------+
| ALL_THEN_OPTIONAL | required set | Only over the required |
| | EFFECTUATED; | set |
Das Expires 20 March 2027 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Composite Execution Finality September 2026
| | optional attempted | |
+-------------------+--------------------+------------------------+
| QUORUM(k) | any k children | No for high- |
| | | consequence classes |
+-------------------+--------------------+------------------------+
| BEST_EFFORT | coordinator tried | Never |
+-------------------+--------------------+------------------------+
Table 1: Join rules and whether prevention may be claimed
12. Compensation Is a New Act
If a required child has already posted, C cannot become EFFECTUATED
and cannot become cleanly ABORTED. A compensation Candidate Act C'
MAY be issued: reverse the post, hold the funds, disable the radio,
retract the tool side effect.
EH_pay CONSUMED + posted
EH_book REJECTED
Forbidden:
S_pay.undo(EH_pay) // handle already consumed
Required:
C' = "return funds for composite C17"
new CAD', new EH'
S_pay.verify/consume(EH')
C = COMPENSATING then CONTAINED
only if C' EFFECTUATED
Figure 4: Compensation does not reuse the original child handle
Success of C' is not success of C. Receipts MUST keep the two
identifiers distinct. Failure of C' leaves C in UNKNOWN containment
and MUST be visible.
13. Coordinator Rules
* The coordinator MUST NOT post a child effect itself unless it is
that child's sink.
* The coordinator MUST persist composite state before sending
commit.
* After crash, the coordinator MUST query child receipts; it MUST
NOT assume commit or abort.
Das Expires 20 March 2027 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Composite Execution Finality September 2026
* A coordinator receipt without child receipts is not evidence that
C effectuated.
* The coordinator SHOULD be identifiable as sink type COMPOSITE in
the registry sense only: it joins, it does not replace SETTLEMENT
or ACTUATION.
14. Timeouts and Crash
prepare_deadline exceeded
-> abort all PREPARED children
-> C = ABORTED
commit sent, coordinator dies
-> children stay PREPARED until
commit, abort, or child-local reserve TTL
-> reserve TTL MUST fail closed
(no automatic post)
child PREPARED, never hears commit/abort
-> on TTL: abort locally
-> report EF-080 / EF-081 if store cannot decide
Automatic commit on coordinator silence is forbidden in the
prevention profile. That pattern is how partial posts happen.
15. Formal Join
Das Expires 20 March 2027 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Composite Execution Finality September 2026
Required(C) = { i | child_i.required }
Prepared(C) = { i in Required(C) | S_i.state == PREPARED }
Posted(C) = { i in Required(C) | S_i.state == EFFECTUATED }
Rejected(C) = { i in Required(C) | S_i.state == REJECTED }
C.EFFECTUATED iff Posted(C) == Required(C)
AND no child digest diverged
AND join_rule == ALL_REQUIRED
or ALL_THEN_OPTIONAL
C.ABORTED iff Posted(C) empty
AND (Rejected(C) nonempty
OR prepare_deadline missed)
C.COMPENSATING iff Posted(C) nonempty
AND Posted(C) != Required(C)
PreventionWellFormed(C) iff
join_rule == ALL_REQUIRED
AND every required S_i supports prepare
AND no required S_i has no_prepare
AND reserve TTL fail-closed
PreventionWellFormed(C) == false
==> MUST NOT claim all-or-none prevention
16. Illustrative Pseudocode
Das Expires 20 March 2027 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Composite Execution Finality September 2026
function effectuate_composite(C, handles):
if not PreventionWellFormed(C):
return mitigation_mode(C, handles) # different claim
prepared = []
for child in required(C):
live = child.sink.reconstruct()
r = child.sink.prepare(handles[child], live)
if r.decision != "PREPARED":
abort_all(prepared)
return receipt(C, "ABORTED", r.reason_code)
prepared.append(child)
for child in prepared:
r = child.sink.commit(handles[child])
if r.decision != "EFFECTUATED":
return receipt(C, "COMPENSATING", "EF-044")
return receipt(C, "EFFECTUATED", consume_outcome="CONSUMED")
function compensate(C, child_posted):
C2 = new_cad(reverse_of(child_posted), parent=C.id)
eh2 = PED.issue(C2)
return child_posted.sink.verify_consume(eh2)
17. Composition with Existing Tools
+===============+==================+=========================+
| Existing tool | Supplies | Still required |
+===============+==================+=========================+
| XA / 2PC | Prepare/commit | Child Act Digest + |
| | wire to RMs | handle bind |
+---------------+------------------+-------------------------+
| Saga / TCC | Forward + | Compensation as new |
| | compensate graph | handle; no silent undo |
+---------------+------------------+-------------------------+
| Outbox / | Ordered jobs, | Retries are new |
| workflow | retries | attempts, not C success |
+---------------+------------------+-------------------------+
| SCITT | Logged composite | Log is not child commit |
| | receipt | |
+---------------+------------------+-------------------------+
| Single-sink | Local authority | This join |
| handle | | |
+---------------+------------------+-------------------------+
Table 2: What existing coordinators supply versus what is
Das Expires 20 March 2027 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Composite Execution Finality September 2026
still required
18. Profiles
ef-composite-strict: ALL_REQUIRED, every required sink supports
prepare, reserve TTL fail-closed, compensation is a new act,
coordinator receipt insufficient.
ef-composite-mitigation: at least one required sink is no_prepare;
document the escaped-effect window; MUST NOT claim prevention.
19. Anticipated Criticisms
The invitation in the abstract to treat "saga plus handle is enough"
as a successful review outcome is deliberate. The same is true of
the performance and reconstruction objections. This section states
where those objections are accepted.
19.1. Objection: Saga Plus Handle Is Enough
If each saga step is already a handle-using sink — reconstruct live
child, prepare or consume, fail closed — then this draft is a join
profile on top of that saga, not a replacement for it. XA resource
managers that expose prepare, and PSP authorize/capture pairs, are
the same pattern under other names.
The residual cases this draft still names:
* the saga logs SUCCESS after a required child posts and another
required child rejects;
* compensation reuses the original child handle instead of a new
reverse act;
* a no_prepare child (mail, many MCP tools) is treated as if 2PC
applied;
* the coordinator receipt is taken as proof that settlement
occurred.
Das Expires 20 March 2027 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Composite Execution Finality September 2026
Accepted:
saga / XA / workflow
AS coordinator
child Execution Handle
AS per-sink authority
Not accepted as prevention:
saga success
without child PREPARED/EFFECTUATED receipts
compensate(original_token)
after the original handle is CONSUMED
BEST_EFFORT notify
advertised as C EFFECTUATED
If reviewers produce a saga profile that already forbids those four
cases, this document should shrink to that profile plus the composite
CAD fields. That outcome is welcome.
19.2. Objection: Prepare Across N Sinks Is a Latency Tax
ALL_REQUIRED prepare adds one reservation round to every required
child before any child posts. On a payment rail that is already
authorize-then-capture, that round already exists. On a three-sink
agent path where mail cannot prepare, the honest profile is
mitigation: do not claim all-or-none, or split notify into a later
act.
Consume-state remains per child handle, not one lock for the whole
composite. The coordinator persists join state; it does not
serialize unrelated composites. Automatic commit on coordinator
silence is still forbidden in the strict profile, because that is how
partial posts happen.
19.3. Objection: Each Child Cannot Reconstruct a Unified CAD
Children do not reconstruct the composite CAD. Each sink
reconstructs only its child: the payment it would post, the tool it
would invoke, the row it would write. The coordinator compares child
receipts and the composite digest over the declared child list. A
mesh hop that is not a child sink does not reconstruct anything.
If a child sink cannot observe the fields that change its own effect,
that child cannot be in a prevention-profile composite. It can be an
optional later act. Hiding that limitation inside a caller-supplied
composite blob is how split reality occurs.
Das Expires 20 March 2027 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Composite Execution Finality September 2026
19.4. What Would Settle the Argument
A minimal demonstration is more useful than another join diagram: one
MCP (or payment) middleware that consumes a child handle, one second
sink that can prepare, and a coordinator that aborts when the second
child rejects — including the case where a prompt-injected
destination changes only one child's digest. This document does not
ship that code. An implementation that does is invited.
20. Industrial Relevance and Public-Roadmap Alignment
Agent products already chain tools: pay, ticket, mail, CRM write.
Cloud workflow services already run sagas. PSPs already split
authorize and capture. Those roadmaps are complementary. This
document does not assert that any named orchestrator is unsafe,
incomplete, or required to implement prepare.
PSP authorize/capture ~ prepare/commit at SETTLEMENT
Cloud workflow / saga ~ coordinator + compensation graph
MCP tool chain ~ children; often no_prepare
Agent runtime ~ proposer of C, not the join
A PSP capture API that already holds an authorization and voids it on
timeout is already a prepare-capable SETTLEMENT sink under another
name. An MCP server that cannot reserve a Gmail send is a no_prepare
TOOL_DISPATCH sink. Putting both in one "strict" composite would be
a mis-profile, not a vendor defect.
Named companies are not claimed as reviewers, implementers, or
endorsers. Corrections and requests to remove a framing are invited.
Silence is not agreement.
21. Questions to the IETF Community
1. Is composite finality a separate document, or a section of the
handle draft?
2. Is ALL_REQUIRED the only join rule worth specifying?
3. Must every prevention-profile child support prepare, or is "post
last no_prepare sink" an acceptable prevention trick?
4. Should reserve TTL default to abort or to hold-until-operator?
5. Is compensation in scope here or a later draft?
6. How should composite receipts nest child receipts without
becoming a new transparency protocol?
Das Expires 20 March 2027 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Composite Execution Finality September 2026
7. What prior art (XA, saga, TCC, TN, workflow) already closes this
if child handles are added as resources?
8. Should optional children be forbidden in v1 so that notify-later
is always a new act?
9. Which venue: DISPATCH, then none until handle lands?
10. If a saga profile already forbids success-without-child-receipts
and silent reuse of a consumed handle, should this draft shrink
to CAD fields only?
11. Is authorize/capture on existing rails accepted as prepare/
commit, or must the wire names change?
22. Potential IETF Discussion Venues
This document does not claim that any named group should adopt the
work.
22.1. DISPATCH
Natural first stop: the work spans payments, HTTP APIs, and agents.
22.2. OAuth
Relevant only if child handles are token profiles. OAuth should not
own actuation join.
22.3. WIMSE
Relevant if child actors are workloads on different hops. Workload
identity is not composite join.
22.4. RATS
Relevant if a child CAD includes environment currentness.
Attestation is not prepare.
22.5. HTTPAPI
Relevant to coordinator HTTP resources and problem+json mapping of
EF-044 / COMPENSATING.
22.6. SCITT
Relevant to logging composite receipts. Not the commit protocol.
Das Expires 20 March 2027 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Composite Execution Finality September 2026
22.7. SAAG
Useful for whether all-or-none across administrative domains is in
scope for the IETF at all.
22.8. No Presumed Home
Individual -00. No IANA request in this revision beyond codes
already reserved in [DAS-REG].
23. Relationship to Other Execution-Finality Internet-Drafts
This draft sits above the handle and the registries. It does not
replace predicate or domain drafts.
DAS-PROTOCOL architecture
DAS-HANDLE authority at ONE sink
DAS-REG COMPOSITE class/type, EF-044
this document join of N handle-using sinks
DAS-PATH every child path must still be covered
DAS-STATE generations still current at commit
DAS-REVOCATION a child handle can be withdrawn before commit
DAS-JURISDICTION each child JEC may differ; join must see that
DAS-PURPOSE live purpose of C and of each child
DAS-AGENTIC tool chain is often the composite proposer
Still not this draft:
delegation warrant
break-glass override
See [DAS-HANDLE], [DAS-REG], [DAS-PROTOCOL], [DAS-PATH], [DAS-STATE],
[DAS-REVOCATION], [DAS-JURISDICTION], [DAS-PURPOSE], and
[DAS-AGENTIC].
24. Security Considerations
Coordinator compromise is not child-sink compromise, but a malicious
coordinator can withhold abort and leave reserves hanging. Child
sinks MUST expire reserves fail-closed. Treating a coordinator
signature as a settlement receipt recreates bearer authority at the
wrong layer. Quorum join on financial or physical children is a
safety bug, not an availability feature.
Das Expires 20 March 2027 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Composite Execution Finality September 2026
25. Privacy Considerations
A composite CAD lists every child destination. That list can reveal
a payment, a patient-adjacent system, and a mail target together.
Coordinators SHOULD store child digests and sink ids, and SHOULD omit
raw arguments from composite receipts sent off-path.
26. IANA Considerations
This version does not request IANA action. It uses COMPOSITE, EF-
044, and profile names already proposed in [DAS-REG]. A later
revision MAY add ef-composite-strict and ef-composite-mitigation to
the profile registry.
27. Criticism, Corrections, and Review Invited
The most useful criticism is that XA plus per-resource handles
already yields this join, or that mitigation sagas are the only
honest Internet profile. Either result should shrink the draft.
Named-product corrections are welcome. Silence is not endorsement.
28. Conclusion
Local handle correctness at each sink does not make a multi-sink
intent final. C is effectuated only when every required child is
effectuated under handles bound to C. If a required child cannot
prepare, the honest claim is mitigation plus a later compensation act
— not all-or-none prevention.
CHILD POST
!=
COMPOSITE FINALITY
SAGA COMPENSATION
!=
THE ORIGINAL ACT SUCCEEDED
PREPARE ALL REQUIRED
or
DO NOT CLAIM PREVENTION
29. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
Das Expires 20 March 2027 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Composite Execution Finality September 2026
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
30. Informative References
[DAS-AGENTIC]
Das, S., "Agentic Execution Finality", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-das-agentic-execution-finality-00,
September 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-das-agentic-execution-finality-00>.
[DAS-HANDLE]
Das, S., "Possession Is Not Authority: Execution Handle,
Sink Verification, Atomic Consumption, and Finality
Receipt", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-das-
execution-handle-00, September 2026,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-das-
execution-handle-00>.
[DAS-JURISDICTION]
Das, S., "Authorized Here, Not Authorized There:
Jurisdiction-Bound Execution Finality for Cross-Border and
Sovereign Systems", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-das-jurisdiction-bound-execution-finality-00,
September 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-das-jurisdiction-bound-execution-finality-00>.
[DAS-PATH] Das, S., "Consequence-Path Completeness for Execution
Finality", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-das-
consequence-path-completeness-00, September 2026,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-das-
consequence-path-completeness-00>.
[DAS-PROTOCOL]
Das, S., "The Missing Protocol Layer for the Agentic
Internet: Computation Is Not Authority", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-das-execution-finality-protocol-
layer-01, September 2026,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-das-execution-
finality-protocol-layer/>.
[DAS-PURPOSE]
Das, S., "Purpose-Bound Execution Finality", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-das-purpose-execution-
finality-00, September 2026,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-das-purpose-
execution-finality-00>.
Das Expires 20 March 2027 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Composite Execution Finality September 2026
[DAS-REG] Das, S., "Illustrative Codes Are Not a Namespace:
Registries for Execution-Finality Objects", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-das-ef-registries-00,
September 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-das-ef-registries-00>.
[DAS-REVOCATION]
Das, S., "Revoked but Still Executable: Closing the
Authorization-to-Effect Gap with Finality-Bound
Revocation", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-das-
finality-bound-revocation-00, September 2026,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-das-finality-
bound-revocation-00>.
[DAS-STATE]
Das, S., "When Valid Authorization Becomes Stale: State
and Policy Continuity at the Execution-Finality Boundary",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-das-state-policy-
continuity-finality-00, September 2026,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-das-state-
policy-continuity-finality-00>.
Author's Address
Sangam Das
Independent
Balasore
Odisha
India
Phone: +91-9861363532
Email: info@sangamdas.com
Das Expires 20 March 2027 [Page 22]