docs(rfd): add v1/v2 durability and reliability expectations to remote transport RFD#1376
Merged
benbrandt merged 1 commit intoJun 5, 2026
Conversation
benbrandt
approved these changes
Jun 5, 2026
Member
benbrandt
left a comment
benbrandt
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for hosting and consolidating! this makes sense.
One thing I think we need to explore is if message ids + tool calls ids are enough, or if we need something more... but implementations will tell us I think
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
After two transport working group meetings yesterday on the topic of durability & reliability guarantees of the HTTP/WS transport, I propose the following levels of support in both v1 and v2 of ACP