IANA Provisional · CRI Scheme Number 27

Registration record

One page for the provenance of the rttp URI scheme. Everything here is checkable by a third party, and anything we assert, we also publish a way to reproduce.

Scheme registration

Item	Value
Scheme name	`rttp`
Status	Provisional
CRI Scheme Number	27
Registered	2026-09-22
Registry	IANA Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Schemes
Change controller	RTTP.COM Organization
Contact	lee@aicent.com

The provisional registry lists schemes whose specification is publicly and permanently available. Nothing about the listing grants exclusivity over the words others use; it records that the name, the grammar and the contact point are stable and reachable.

Specification

Joint specification — draft-li-rttp-iqa-addressing, IETF Independent Submission, in review via the ISE. One document, two schemes.
Normative reference — URI grammar and semantics.
Specification reading — AICENT-002: grammar, ROUTE_SHARD derivation, PulseHeader128 frame codec.
Scheme boundary — Open layers: what the scheme claims, and what it deliberately does not.
Package archive — every published version, with checksums.

The sister scheme

iqa:// — IANA Provisional, CRI Scheme Number 28 — answers WHETHER: standing attestations sealed into 128-byte envelopes, fail-closed and offline-verifiable. Registered to IQA.ORG Organization, documented at iqa.org/AICENT-009.

Two schemes by design: the anchor of addressing is a hash; the anchor of evidence is a key. The question and the answer share one 16-byte shard, so an answer is bound to the question it answers — but they cannot be one scheme. Do not flatten them.

Reference implementations

Ecosystem	Package
Rust	crates.io `rttp` 1.3.1 — the first formal (non-pre-release) crate publication, implemented against the v1.2.6 specification
Python	PyPI `rttp` 1.3.1
JavaScript	npm `@aicent/rttp` 1.3.1

The three implementations share no code and agree byte for byte on the same published vector set.

Reproduce any of it yourself in three commands: Verify without trusting us.

Anticipated Objections

Q1 · What is RTTP? · click to expand

RTTP denotes Resonant Time Transfer Protocol — the addressing pillar. An rttp:// URI names an intent against an authority (intent.pillar.root); the address is derived by computation — one SHA-256, no DNS, no registry, no fetch. The name is a claim: intent addressing under a real-time constraint — synchronized in time, with resolution latency bounded and independent of network scale.

Q2 · What is IQA? · click to expand

IQA denotes Identity Quality Assurance — the attestation pillar. An iqa:// URI asks a named Organ for a verdict about a subject's standing: one of Ghost, Probation, Radiant, Genesis — a closed set. A verdict is an answer, not a computation: seals are HMAC-SHA256 over the canonical claim, bound to the subject's key material, verifiable offline — no issuer, no key directory, no network call. "I QA" — I, the answerer.

Q3 · Why not just use regular https URLs? · click to expand

A https URL states where a resource lives — you must fetch it to know anything. An rttp URI is computed, not looked up: the address is derived from the authority by SHA-256, with no DNS, no registry query and no fetch. The intent is part of the identifier itself, and anyone can verify the derivation offline.

Q4 · Why two schemes instead of one? · click to expand

Because they answer different kinds of questions. rttp resolves where — and when — by pure computation, needing no one's word. iqa states whether — a named Organ's verdict about a subject. Two namespaces keep the question channel and the attestation channel apart: the computation never depends on anyone's word, and the attestation never pretends to be computation.

Q5 · Is this a performance claim — faster than PTP? · click to expand

No. The temporal half of the name is a structural commitment, not a benchmark: resolution is computation, so addressing latency does not scale with the network. Clock synchronization is PTP's discipline and remains its own; RTTP borrows the discipline of time transfer for intent — two parties compute the same address into agreement without a shared lookup.

Q6 · How do I verify any of this? · click to expand

Replay the conformance vectors at iqa.org/challenge/ (35 vectors, any language, byte for byte), or install the packages from the URI Center.

Don't take our word for any of it — replay the vectors at iqa.org/challenge/ or run the demos at iqa.org/demo/.