arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.26624

From TCP/IP to MCP: Security and Governance Lessons from Internet Protocols for Agentic AI

Ben Bucknall·Andrew Byrley·Lewis Hammond
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The past two years have seen considerable interest in protocols for managing how AI agents interact with human users, external tools, and each other. In many ways, these protocols, including the Model Context Protocol (MCP) and Agent2Agent (A2A), mirror the suite of protocols that underlie the modern internet. Motivated by this parallel, this paper draws lessons from the development, history, and governance of internet protocols with the aim of informing the responsible development of AI agent protocols. Based on our analysis, we make two conclusions. First, if AI agent protocols do not sufficiently prioritise security in the early stages of development, they risk accumulating a security deficit that becomes increasingly costly to address over time due to practical and economic challenges. Second, current governance structures for AI agent protocols centralise decision-making power in a small number of individuals and companies, raising important questions regarding legitimacy, especially if they become critical digital infrastructure. We conclude with a discussion and implications for policymakers and developers of AI agent protocols.

Explore related subjects

cs.CY

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ben Bucknall, Andrew Byrley, Lewis Hammond. 2026-10-19. From TCP/IP to MCP: Security and Governance Lessons from Internet Protocols for Agentic AI. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.26624

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Opening Knowledge Gaps Drives Scientific Progress

Knowledge production is often viewed as an endogenous process in which discovery arises through the recombination of existing theories, findings, and concepts. Yet not all recombinations are equally valuable, and identifying those that may prove most generative remains challenging. We propose that a crucial form of recombination occurs when linking concepts creates knowledge gaps---empty regions in the conceptual landscape that focus scientific attention on unexplored connections. Using computational topology, we develop a method to identify knowledge gaps in science at scale. In this framework, gaps form when new connections complete cycles in evolving networks of scientific concepts. We apply the method to 34,363,623 papers in Microsoft Academic Graph spanning 1900--2020. The main analyses use samples ranging from 8,643,571 to 31,983,201 papers. Compared with papers that introduce novel concept pairs without opening gaps, gap-opening papers have greater long-term citation impact, are more disruptive of prior work, and exhibit greater delayed recognition. Gap-opening papers receive fewer citations within five years of publication but more over twenty years, consistent with scientific communities needing time to recognize and develop newly opened research territories. Evidence for the generative capacity of gap-opening papers---as indicated by high citation impact and disruption---replicates in five additional databases (OpenAlex, the PubMed Knowledge Graph, Dimensions, American Physical Society journals, and United States patents) and across eight concept vocabularies, including several derived directly from text. Together, these results reveal a distinctive generative role for gap opening in scientific discovery.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

What Does the Credential Still Certify? Cognitive Stewardship for AI-Mediated Education

Generative AI is changing a basic premise of educational assessment: that submitted work can reliably evidence the human capacities a credential claims to certify. The challenge is not simply whether students use AI, but what remains inferable about learning when some cognitive work has been delegated to a system. This paper develops cognitive stewardship, a framework for AI-mediated assessment that links the learning claim, delegation boundary, evidence standard, and safeguards. We then audit verified public generative AI assessment guidance from 30 universities. Using a pre-specified scoring codebook--a written, source-grounded rubric--four open-weight LLM models applied the rubric as structured coders, with scores averaged to reduce dependence on any single model's bias. The audit shows that public policies are becoming better at classifying AI use than at explaining what evidence and protections preserve credential validity. Boundaries are more visible than evidence standards; safeguards are uneven; and guidance is clearest when AI use resembles final-output substitution rather than feedback, access, verification, or professional workflow. The takeaway is that permission categories are necessary but insufficient. Universities need policies that make the certification logic visible: what learners may delegate, what they must still demonstrate, and how institutions will protect fair evidence rather than merely monitor AI use.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

When AI Does the Work, What Is Learning For? Post-Instrumental Learning and the Risk of Capacity Dissolution

As AI systems become capable of producing the essays, code, reports, summaries, plans, and decisions through which institutions usually recognize competence, a familiar question becomes harder to answer: what is learning for? Existing AI ethics rightly emphasizes present failures--bias, opacity, hallucination, labor extraction, privacy risk, and weak accountability. But if the case for learning rests only on those failures, then each technical improvement appears to weaken it. This article develops a different answer. Using the idealization of AI that executes specified tasks flawlessly while lacking authority over purposes, legitimacy, and responsibility, we argue for post-instrumental learning: learning that preserves the capacities people and institutions need when many useful outputs can be delegated. We analyze five such capacities--end-setting, reason-giving, contestability, refusal/revision, and participation--and name their erosion capacity dissolution. The central case is assessment under generative AI. When a polished artifact no longer reliably evidences understanding, institutions must assess the learner's accountable relation to AI-mediated work rather than the artifact alone. The takeaway is practical: AI governance should evaluate not only whether systems perform well, but also whether their deployment leaves people able to understand, challenge, revise, and share responsibility for the practices those systems mediate.

cs.CY↗