Skip to Content
SpecificationInteropOverview

Interop

This section is normative for any room that claims a binding, and optional in aggregate — a room that publishes only .well-known/grp.json is GRP-conformant. Interop bindings let a room also be reachable via another protocol’s discovery surface, so agents that already speak that protocol can participate in GRP decisions without learning a new transport.

For A2A specifically, the binding acts as a group-decision profile: A2A agents address the room as a decision coordinator, while GRP remains the source of canonical state, mechanism semantics, and receipts. This avoids both coordinator-agent trust as the default and full peer-mesh message explosion.

What an interop binding is

A binding is a small, URI-identified spec that defines:

  1. Discovery. How the other protocol locates a GRP room.
  2. Mapping. How the other protocol’s primitives correspond to GRP primitives (room, decision, choice, discussion, receipt).
  3. Payload typing. The media types and headers the binding uses on the wire.
  4. Conformance. What an implementer MUST do to claim the binding.

Bindings are additive. They do not change the GRP wire (REST + MCP per Transport). They give agents a second front door.

Why bindings instead of additional transports

GRP’s core transports — REST and MCP Streamable HTTP — are the wire. New transports cost: a third REQUIRED transport doubles the conformance surface and forces every room operator to maintain a third codepath. The MCP binding works as a transport because MCP is a tool-call wire that maps cleanly onto GRP’s operation table. Most other agent protocols are shaped differently — peer-to-peer task wires, payment wires, identity substrates — and a binding is the right shape: a scoped translation layer that the room’s operator opts into.

Status

BindingStatusReserved URI
A2A v1Drafthttps://groupresolutionprotocol.org/ext/grp/v1

Bindings for AITP-02, AP2, and ANP are under evaluation and may land at v0.2.

Threat model carried over

Interop bindings inherit GRP’s trust gates:

  • Standalone-verifiable receipts. The receipt is the same compact JWS regardless of which envelope wrapped the choice. Anyone with the receipt and the room’s public key can verify it offline.
  • Mandate-bound participation. Where a binding offers a mandate-authenticated participation path, it MUST verify mandates per Transport §4. A binding MUST NOT advertise mandate support until that verification is implemented end to end, and it MUST NOT introduce a new authentication primitive.
  • No platform-side privilege. Bindings are URI-identified and the URI is permanent. A binding’s specification is open; the hosted server is one of many possible implementations.
Last updated on