Condé Nast

United States of America peiyuan_liao@condenast.com

Applications AI Preferences AI Preferences Automation Control Web Automation This document specifies the core automation-preferences.txt protocol, a machine-readable document that defines server-side automation permissions with a focus on essential controls for AI and automation use cases. Unlike the traditional robots.txt, which governs crawling, this protocol addresses a broader range of automation activities while maintaining simplicity for initial implementation. It defines the fundamental file format, policy declarations, HTTP method restrictions, and purpose requirements. Advanced features are addressed in a separate extension specification. About This Document The latest revision of this draft can be found at . Status information for this document may be found at . Discussion of this document takes place on the AI Preferences Working Group mailing list (), which is archived at . Subscribe at .

Introduction The evolution of web automation has outpaced the capabilities of existing standards such as robots.txt, which only provides for crawler permissions. This document introduces the core automation-preferences.txt protocol that enables server operators to explicitly define basic policies governing automated interactions. These core policies cover fundamental aspects of automation control, including HTTP method restrictions and automation purpose declarations. The automation-preferences.txt protocol is designed with extensibility in mind, allowing future enhancements while maintaining backward compatibility. This specification focuses on essential controls to facilitate initial adoption and implementation, with more advanced features defined in a separate extension document.

Applicability The automation-preferences.txt protocol applies to automated systems interacting with web servers, especially those driven by foundation models or other types of advanced AI models. It is designed to benefit both content owners-by allowing them to specify acceptable automation behaviors-and developers of automated systems, who can use these directives to ensure compliance.

Relationship to Extension Specification This document defines the core functionality of the automation-preferences.txt protocol. A separate document, "Protocol Extension for Advanced AI Automation Control," extends this core specification with additional directives and capabilities. The extension specification builds upon this core document without modifying its requirements, providing a path for progressive implementation. Implementations conforming to only this core specification are considered compliant with the automation-preferences.txt protocol. The extension specification defines optional enhancements that may be implemented once the core functionality is established.

Conventions and Definitions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. The following terms are used in this document:

• Automation: Programmatic interactions with a web server.
• State-changing requests: HTTP methods that alter server state (e.g., POST, PUT, DELETE, PATCH).
• Automation policy: A set of rules defining permitted and prohibited automated behaviors for a specific scope.
• Automation purpose: The declared intent or use case for which automation is being performed.

All terminology defined in this core specification applies to the extension specification without redefinition. The extension specification may introduce additional terms for concepts not covered in this document.

Protocol Specification

File Location and Format The automation-preferences.txt file MUST be hosted at the root of the domain, in the same manner as robots.txt. The file is structured as a series of key-value pairs that specify automation permissions. The file MUST be served with the text/plain MIME type. Lines beginning with the hash symbol (#) are considered comments and MUST be ignored by parsers. Each directive consists of a field name, followed by a colon, followed by a value. Multiple values MAY be separated by commas. Parsers MUST silently ignore any directives they do not recognize. This enables future extensions to add new capabilities without breaking compatibility with existing implementations.

Automation Policy Declaration A top-level directive, AutomationPolicy, indicates the overall stance of the server regarding automated interactions and state-changing requests. The following values are defined:

• open: Automation is generally permitted with few restrictions.
• limited: Automation is permitted with specific restrictions.
• strict: Automation is heavily restricted or prohibited except in specific circumstances.

If the AutomationPolicy directive is not present, clients SHOULD assume a default value of "limited". Example:

HTTP Method Restrictions The protocol MUST explicitly list allowed and disallowed HTTP methods using the AllowedMethods and DisallowedMethods directives. Typically, GET and HEAD are permitted while methods such as POST, PUT, DELETE, and PATCH are disallowed for automated processing. If no HTTP method directives are specified, clients SHOULD assume that only GET and HEAD methods are permitted. Example:

Purpose Declaration The protocol enables automation clients to declare their intended usage purposes. This is managed using the following directives:

• RequireAutomationPurpose: Boolean value indicating whether clients must declare a purpose for automation.
• AllowedPurposes: Comma-separated list of permitted purposes using standardized vocabulary terms.
• DisallowedPurposes: Comma-separated list of prohibited purposes.

The specific vocabulary terms for automation purposes are intentionally not defined in this protocol specification. Instead, this protocol provides a mechanism for expressing allowed and disallowed purposes, which can be populated with terms from any widely accepted vocabulary standard. This approach ensures that the protocol remains flexible and can adapt to evolving vocabulary standards while maintaining the essential structure for purpose declarations. Example:

Scope and Applicability In a manner similar to robots.txt, the automation-preferences.txt file is divided into groups, each of which applies to a specific subset of content. Each group begins with one or more scope directives that define the target of the preferences. The following directives MAY be used within a group:

• Scope: Specifies the URL pattern (e.g., /admin/) to which the group applies. Wildcards MAY be used to indicate variable components of the URL.
• Host: Specifies a subdomain or host. If present, the group applies only to the indicated subdomain; if omitted, the group is assumed to apply to the entire host.

Groups are processed in order of specificity. When multiple groups match a given request, the group with the longest matching Scope directive SHALL take precedence. Example:

Extension Mechanism The automation-preferences.txt protocol is designed for extensibility. The protocol defines a forward-compatible approach where implementations:

• MUST process all recognized directives according to this specification
• MUST silently ignore any unrecognized directives
• MUST NOT fail or produce errors when encountering extended directives

This enables future extensions to add new capabilities while maintaining compatibility with implementations of this core specification. Extended directives may include:

• Rate limiting controls
• Automation technology restrictions
• API and XHR permissions
• Session requirements
• Asset-level annotation methods

Implementation and Enforcement Servers implementing this protocol SHOULD:

• Verify incoming requests against the rules specified in automation-preferences.txt.
• Respond with appropriate HTTP status codes (e.g., 403 Forbidden) for non-compliant requests.
• Include HTTP headers that reference the applicable automation policy for transparency.

Clients consuming this protocol SHOULD:

• Fetch and parse the automation-preferences.txt file before performing automated operations.
• Honor the HTTP method restrictions specified in the file.
• Declare their automation purpose when required.
• Respect the scope directives when performing operations on different paths.

Implementations SHOULD cache the automation-preferences.txt file to reduce server load, but SHOULD NOT cache it for longer than 24 hours to ensure timely policy updates.

Security Considerations The use of machine-readable automation policies introduces security considerations that must be addressed by implementations:

• Parsing of automation-preferences.txt MUST be performed securely to prevent vulnerabilities such as buffer overruns and denial-of-service attacks.
• Care SHOULD be taken to avoid exposing sensitive policy details that could be exploited by adversaries.
• The protocol does not provide authentication or cryptographic verification mechanisms for the file content. Servers SHOULD ensure the file is served via secure connections to prevent tampering.
• The protocol does not enforce client compliance; it relies on good-faith adherence by automation providers. Servers SHOULD implement additional detection and enforcement mechanisms as needed.

IANA Considerations This document has no IANA actions.

References Normative References Harvard University Huawei Technologies Informative References Google LLC Google LLC Google LLC

Sample automation-preferences.txt File The following is an example of a automation-preferences.txt file that adheres to this specification: