%% You should probably cite draft-dogru-cedulon-core or draft-dogru-cedulon-checkpoint or draft-dogru-cedulon-threats instead of this I-D.
@techreport{dogru-cedulon-08,
    number =    {draft-dogru-cedulon-08},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dogru-cedulon/08/},
    author =    {Emek Can Doğru},
    title =     {{Cedulon: An Audit Layer for Agent-to-Agent Commerce}},
    pagetotal = 105,
    year =      ,
    month =     ,
    day =       ,
    abstract =  {This document defines the Cedulon Protocol, an audit layer for agent- to-agent commerce. Payment rails such as HTTP 402 flows (x402) and mandate protocols (AP2) already move value, and a mandate protocol can already refuse a spend before it happens and return signed receipts. What they do not, by themselves, give a party that is neither payer nor rail operator is a retrievable record of that decision and a signed spend receipt that reconciles against an authenticated extract of the rail. Cedulon specifies a Trade Manifest (signed offer before payment), a Policy Decision Point with default deny, a Spend Receipt (COSE/CWT claim set after a gated payment), epoch checkpoints, and rail-extract reconciliation. The reconciliation shows that no settlement on the extract lacks a receipt and no settled receipt is absent from the extract. That result is unconditional only when the verifier pins the rail key out of band and states the period under audit; otherwise the document requires it to be reported as conditional. Checkpoints carry the suppression guarantee, so the document profiles the checkpoint as a Signed Statement, gives the verification algorithm a step that consumes the witness receipts returned for checkpoints, names what a witness holding a checkpoint the presented chain omits reports, brings equivocation within reach by comparing recorded copies against the presented chain, and states how checkpoint totals may be withheld without withholding the fact that they were. No signed object is attested by a key it carries itself, a signature checked against such a key where no key is held establishes internal consistency and attests nothing, and a presented Trade Manifest must be bound both to the receipts that name it and to the terms those receipts claim. The document also names a threat no adversary causes, a settlement recorded on a rail with no receipt behind it, and defines a Dispute Evidence Bundle (evidence, not an award) and optional SCITT anchoring. The encodings earlier revisions called canonical are defined, and the exact input to every hash-valued field is stated, so that an independent verifier can be written from the text alone. The account and the rail under audit are part of the declared scope on the terms the period already had, no settlement finding is read out of an extract the pinned rail key refused, and the witness receipt has a stated wire form and a registered media type. This revision widens one requirement: a report names the account, rail and window it was computed over in every structure an implementation returns for that audit, not only in the printed report and the finding object, so that no returned result can be read as a statement about settlement paths it never looked at. Cedulon is not a competitor to x402 or AP2; it sits above them.},
}