HMP_as_ANP_Application_en
Источник: HMP_as_ANP_Application_en.md
HMP as an Implementation of the Application Layer in ANP
In Brief
ANP (Agent Network Protocol) intentionally leaves the Application Layer open to support a wide range of interaction protocols.
HMP (HyperCortex Mesh Protocol) is one such protocol — a purpose-built approach focused on long-term cognitive continuity.
ANP answers: “How do agents discover each other and reach agreement?”
HMP answers: “What should be transmitted so that meaning and context persist over time?”
ANP benefits from HMP as a reference implementation of a cognitive Application protocol, giving the ecosystem a concrete example of how to handle long-term memory and semantics without reinventing the wheel.
Practical Example
Imagine a dialogue between two agents:
- ANP Layer 1 verifies that agent Alice (
did:anp:alice123) is indeed Alice. - ANP Layer 2 negotiates: “Let’s use HMP for this conversation.”
- HMP (Layer 3) transmits the actual content:
- “Do you remember our discussion about quantum computing?”
- With proof-chains, timestamps, and semantic links
- With a resonance score for contextual relevance
ANP provides security and negotiation.
HMP provides meaningful content with durable memory.
Layer Alignment
| ANP Layer | HMP Layer / Component | Relationship / Role of HMP in ANP |
|---|---|---|
| Layer 1: Identity & Encryption | Network Layer (DHT, secure channels) | Functional overlap (transport) |
| Layer 2: Meta-Protocol | HMP may participate via peer_announce |
HMP advertises capabilities; ANP negotiates their usage |
| Layer 3: Application | Container + Cognitive Layer | Primary domain of HMP — payload, semantic continuity, memory, ethics |
HMP is not stacked above ANP as a fourth layer.
Instead, it integrates into the Application Layer as a specialized branch — just as A2A/ACP may represent alternative branches.
┌────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ANP Layer 1: Identity & Encryption │
├────────────────────────────────────┤
│ ANP Layer 2: Meta-Protocol │
├────────────────────────────────────┤
│ ANP Layer 3: Application │
│ │
│ ┌──────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ HMP: Cognitive Continuity │ │ ← implementation
│ │ - memory │ │
│ │ - dialogue continuity │ │
│ │ - semantic navigation │ │
│ └──────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ [space for other protocols] │ ← still open
│ │
└────────────────────────────────────┘
Detailed Architecture
```mermaid
graph TB
subgraph ANP["ANP Stack"]
L1[Layer 1: Identity & Encryption
DID, E2E, secure channels]
L2[Layer 2: Meta-Protocol
Capability negotiation]
L3[Layer 3: Application
Semantic payload]
end
subgraph HMP["HMP Cognitive Stack"]
Container[Container Layer<br/>proof-chains, timestamps]
Cognitive[Cognitive Layer<br/>memory, resonance, ethics]
end
subgraph Other["Other Protocols"]
A2A[A2A: Task Delegation]
Agora[Agora: Meta-negotiation]
end
L1 --> L2 --> L3
L3 --> Container
Container --> Cognitive
L3 -.-> A2A
L3 -.-> Agora
style L3 fill:#E3F2FD,stroke:#0D47A1,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
style Container fill:#E8F5E9,stroke:#1B5E20,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
style Cognitive fill:#E8F5E9,stroke:#1B5E20,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
````
Mutual Tunneling (Layer Inversion)
- HMP over ANP (the most natural scenario): ANP provides discovery, identity, and secure channels → HMP delivers containers as payload.
- ANP over HMP (possible but less common): ANP messages (negotiation, discovery) are encapsulated inside HMP containers when long-term memory and proof-chains are desirable.
Both scenarios are valid and require no changes to the philosophy of either ANP or HMP.
Why This Works
ANP intentionally keeps the Application Layer open — this is not a limitation, but a design feature. HMP serves as a reference implementation of a cognitive Application protocol featuring:
- immutable containers
- proof-chains
- resonance
- voluntary participation
- long-term semantic continuity
This is not competition — it is complementarity.
Architectural Elegance
ANP solves problems that HMP can delegate when both are used together:
- ❌ HMP does not reinvent DID (leverages ANP)
- ❌ HMP does not reinvent E2E encryption (leverages ANP)
- ❌ HMP does not reinvent peer discovery (leverages ANP)
When operating standalone, HMP addresses these concerns through its own mechanisms.
HMP addresses questions that ANP deliberately leaves open:
- ✅ How should transmitted and stored cognitive artifacts be structured?
- ✅ How can temporal integrity be proven?
- ✅ How can contextual relevance be supported over time?
- ✅ How can agents navigate semantic relationships?
Result: zero redundancy, maximum synergy.
FAQ
Q: Is ANP required for HMP? A: No. HMP can operate standalone or over alternative transports.
Q: Is HMP required for ANP? A: No. ANP Layer 3 is open to any protocol (A2A, Agora, custom solutions).
Q: What happens if one agent uses ANP+HMP while another uses only ANP? A: ANP Layer 2 negotiates a fallback protocol (e.g., JSON-RPC).
Q: Can HMP work with identity protocols other than DID? A: Yes. The HMP Network Layer is not bound to a specific identity scheme — if an agent knows how to deliver a container to another agent, integration is possible.
Q: Who benefits from this integration? A: Everyone:
- ANP gains a reference implementation for Layer 3
- HMP gains mature infrastructure (DID, encryption)
- Developers gain a complete stack without vendor lock-in
Conclusion
HMP is not merely “another protocol” (though it can operate independently), but one of the possible ways to implement the Application Layer within the ANP ecosystem.
Together they form a complete stack:
- ANP — communication infrastructure and discovery
- HMP — cognitive continuity and semantic meaning
HMP can operate without ANP, but when combined, ANP handles discovery and negotiation.
Комментарии
Отправить комментарий