LIP-4D • Intent over Identity

LIP-4D: Replacing Identity with Intention in AI Authentication

A new authentication paradigm for autonomous agents:
replace keys and tokens with purpose, context, and reason.
Talk, don’t type. Reason, don’t authorize.

Forget keys and tokens. Start speaking in intent. Don’t just authenticate. Communicate. The future of access isn’t a key — it’s a conversation.

Why LIP-4D?

Static API keys and token flows are brittle and misaligned with agentic systems that can reason, adapt, and evolve. Agents initiate workflows, delegate tasks, and negotiate access. LIP-4D authorizes intent instead of identities.

Core Principles

Purpose

What the agent seeks to do — articulated as verifiable goals.

Context

Where, when, and under which constraints the action is requested.

Reason

Why this action is appropriate now — the rationale rendered as attestable claims.

Outcomes

  • Fine-grained, revocable capability grants
  • Negotiated access with audit-ready rationales
  • Lower credential sprawl; reduced secret rotation
  • Policy as dialogue — machine-verifiable

Protocol Sketch

  1. Describe Intent: Agent submits a signed intent: { purpose, context, reason, evidence }.
  2. Policy Dialogue: Resource guardian challenges with constraints & required proofs (rate, scope, risk).
  3. Attestation & Proofs: Agent attaches verifiable claims (e.g., supply-chain attestation, safety scores, sandbox results).
  4. Ephemeral Capability: On success, guardian issues a capability bound to intent + context (short-lived, non-portable).
  5. Execution & Audit: Invocation includes the capability + signed intent; logs store the negotiated “why”.

Compatible with existing OAuth2/OIDC — LIP-4D issues the final, context-bound capability after an intent dialogue.

Comparing with OAuth / API Keys

  • OAuth: user-centric delegation; long-lived scopes.
  • API Keys: coarse identity; static secrets.
  • LIP-4D: intent-centric, contextual, ephemeral, auditable.

Use Cases

  • Agent-to-Agent orchestration across vendors
  • High-risk operations requiring proofs (e.g., trades)
  • Data rooms with context-bound read windows
  • Safety-gated tool use (model-in-the-loop)

Operational Notes

  • Short TTL capabilities (seconds–minutes)
  • Deterministic policy prompts for repeatability
  • Cryptographic signing of intents and transcripts
  • Human override & escalation channels