Direct RFQ Standard: Definition and Architecture

Direct RFQ Standard: Definition and Architecture. A common structure for qualified B2B quotation requests in human and agentic commerce

Status: DirectRFQ public standard definition, version 0.1 · Publication date: 20 July 2026 · Specification owner: DirectRFQ.com

Canonical definition: A Direct RFQ is a structured, purpose-specific and machine-readable route through which an authorised buyer, procurement system or AI agent can submit a qualified request for information or quotation to an identified business, using declared inputs, validation rules, security controls, response semantics and human-review conditions.

The Direct RFQ Standard defines the information and process boundary between discovering a potential supplier and entering a governed commercial transaction.

It replaces the generic instruction to “contact us for a quote” with an explicit contract for submitting a useful B2B enquiry. The standard helps the buyer understand what information is required, helps the supplier receive a request that can be evaluated, and helps software systems exchange the request without inventing missing commercial meaning.

A Direct RFQ may be implemented as a web form, API, WebMCP tool, MCP tool, A2A agent skill or another controlled interface. The interface may change. The commercial meaning and the minimum information contract remain consistent.

DirectRFQ position: Direct RFQ is not shorthand for automatic pricing. It is the standardisation of the request, qualification and response pathway. A supplier may still require engineering review, commercial approval, buyer verification or human judgement, and may decline to quote.

1. Purpose of the Direct RFQ Standard

Most B2B websites publish information but provide weak routes to commercial action. A buyer may find a capable supplier and still be forced to use a generic form that does not ask for the technical, logistical or commercial facts required to evaluate the opportunity.

The opposite problem also occurs. Buyers send unstructured emails, attachments and partial specifications. Suppliers spend time clarifying the request before they can decide whether it fits their scope. AI agents amplify both problems when they must infer field meanings, units, authority and expected outcomes from ambiguous pages.

The Direct RFQ Standard is designed to reduce this coordination loss. It provides a common architecture for:

discovering the correct RFQ route for a product, service, capability or commercial intent;
collecting the minimum information needed for initial qualification;
preserving units, constraints, identifiers and attachments in structured form;
declaring authentication, confidentiality, privacy and human-review conditions;
returning an acknowledgement, clarification request, qualification result, no-quote decision or quotation with unambiguous status;
supporting people, conventional software and AI agents through the same commercial semantics;
creating an auditable transition from discovery to enquiry and, where authorised, to transaction.

The primary outcome

A conforming Direct RFQ implementation should allow a competent buyer or authorised agent to answer five questions before submission:

Am I sending the request to the correct business and route?
Is the request within the supplier’s declared scope?
Which information and files are required?
What will submission mean, and what result should I expect?
How will the request be protected, reviewed and tracked?

2. What Direct RFQ is not

Direct RFQ is not	Why the distinction matters
A generic contact form	A generic form captures a message. A Direct RFQ declares commercial intent, applicable offer, required inputs, validation, expected result and route policy.
An automatic quotation engine	The standard may support automated pricing, but automation is optional. Complex, regulated or non-standard requests can require human review.
A purchase order	Submission is normally a request for information or quotation. It does not create an order unless a separately authorised workflow explicitly provides that effect.
A binding supplier offer	An acknowledgement or qualification response is not a quotation. A quotation must declare its own validity, scope, conditions and authority.
A reverse auction	Direct RFQ structures bilateral or routed enquiries. Competitive tendering and auction logic may use the data model but require additional rules.
A supplier marketplace	A marketplace may implement Direct RFQ, but the standard does not require an intermediary or central directory.
An AI-agent protocol	Direct RFQ defines commercial request semantics. A2A, MCP, WebMCP or APIs can carry or expose those semantics.
Supplier approval	A well-structured request does not replace legal, financial, compliance, security or technical due diligence.

3. Architectural principles

3.1 Identity before action

The buyer must be able to identify the business receiving the request, the operator of the RFQ route and the expected contracting entity. A domain, brand name or agent endpoint alone is insufficient when these roles differ.

3.2 Qualification before quotation

The route should collect enough information to decide whether the opportunity belongs with the supplier before requesting detailed commercial work. Category-specific qualification prevents unsuitable requests without forcing every buyer through a full onboarding process.

3.3 Explicit meaning

Fields, units, allowed values, confidentiality classes, statuses and expected results should be declared. Systems must not silently infer that “quantity” means annual demand, batch size or first delivery quantity.

3.4 Interface independence

The commercial contract should survive a change of interface. The same route definition may be rendered as a human form, exposed through OpenAPI, registered as a WebMCP tool or invoked through an operational A2A agent.

3.5 Progressive disclosure

Public discovery data should remain concise. Sensitive drawings, detailed specifications, pricing logic and compliance documents can be requested only after identity, purpose or confidentiality conditions are satisfied.

3.6 Human review by design

Human involvement is a declared control, not an implementation failure. The route should state which conditions require engineering, compliance, credit, security or commercial review.

3.7 Non-binding by default

Unless the route explicitly declares otherwise and has suitable authority controls, an RFQ submission is an invitation to evaluate and respond. It is not an order, contract acceptance or promise to quote.

3.8 Traceable state

Every accepted submission should receive a stable request identifier. Material state changes, clarifications, versions, quotations and cancellations should be attributable and auditable.

3.9 Minimum necessary data

The route should request information needed for its declared purpose. It should not collect personal, commercially sensitive or technical data merely because the interface can store it.

3.10 Extensible core

The standard defines a cross-industry core and permits profiles for categories such as manufacturing, industrial equipment, software, logistics, professional services, energy and regulated procurement.

4. Direct RFQ reference architecture

The reference architecture separates discovery, commercial semantics, transport and transaction authority. This prevents a change in protocol or user interface from changing the meaning of the request.

1. DiscoverIdentify the business, offering, capability and canonical RFQ route.

2. QualifyCheck scope, territory, constraints, evidence and minimum buyer fit.

3. SubmitSend a validated request envelope through an authorised interface.

4. ResolveAcknowledge, clarify, review, quote, decline or route onward.

Layer 1 — Business and route discovery

The business publishes a canonical identity and one or more purpose-specific RFQ routes. Discovery may occur through its website, A2A Business Card, search engine, marketplace, catalogue, registry or buyer system.

Layer 2 — Offer and capability qualification

The buyer or agent evaluates whether the requested product, service, territory, application, capacity, certification or constraint is compatible with the declared offer.

Layer 3 — Route contract

The Direct RFQ Route Descriptor identifies the route, applicable intent, required data, accepted files, validation, authentication, privacy, human review, response target and current operational status.

Layer 4 — Request envelope

The request envelope carries the buyer’s identity and authority context, requested items, requirements, quantities, dates, locations, commercial assumptions, attachments and reply preferences.

Layer 5 — Interface and transport

The request may be submitted through HTML, HTTPS API, WebMCP, MCP, A2A or an approved messaging channel. Transport security and protocol details belong here; commercial meaning belongs in layers 3–4.

Layer 6 — Validation and trust

The recipient validates syntax, schema, business rules, identity, authorisation, file safety, duplication and policy. Validation should distinguish a technically invalid message from a commercially unsuitable request.

Layer 7 — Supplier workflow

The supplier routes the request to sales, engineering, compliance, procurement, service or another responsible function. Automation may enrich or prioritise the request, but exceptions and material uncertainty should be escalated.

Layer 8 — Response and audit

The supplier returns a status-bearing response. The system records acknowledgements, clarification cycles, versions, decisions, quotations, expiry and cancellation without implying authority that has not been granted.

Architectural rule: Business identity → applicable capability → RFQ route → validated request → governed review → explicit response. No interface or agent should be allowed to skip an authority boundary merely because it can execute the next technical step.

5. Core information objects

Object	Purpose	Typical owner
Business identity	Identifies the represented supplier, buyer, route operator and contracting entity.	Business or verified publisher
Offering or capability reference	Connects the request to a product, service, category or production capability.	Supplier
RFQ Route Descriptor	Declares how a specific type of request can be submitted and handled.	Supplier or authorised operator
RFQ Request Envelope	Carries the buyer’s qualified request and context.	Buyer or authorised agent
Line item	Defines an item, service, configuration or work package and its quantities.	Buyer
Requirement	Expresses a measurable, selectable or documentary condition.	Buyer, profile or regulator
Attachment reference	Describes an uploaded or controlled document with classification and integrity metadata.	Submitting party
RFQ Response Envelope	Returns acknowledgement, clarification, qualification, decline or quotation status.	Supplier or authorised operator
Quotation	Declares the supplier’s commercial offer, validity, conditions and authorised issuer.	Supplier
Event record	Tracks material state transitions and accountable actions.	Workflow operator
Policy reference	Links privacy, terms, confidentiality, retention, security and route-specific conditions.	Relevant controller or contracting party

6. Direct RFQ Route Descriptor

The Route Descriptor is the supplier-published contract for a particular enquiry path. It should be discoverable before the buyer prepares a submission.

Minimum route fields

Field	Requirement	Meaning
`routeId`	MUST	Stable route identifier.
`name`	MUST	Human-readable route name.
`standardVersion`	MUST	Direct RFQ version implemented by the descriptor.
`intent`	MUST	Purpose such as product quote, solution selection, capacity, service, rental, spare parts or compliance.
`recipient`	MUST	Business expected to evaluate the request.
`appliesTo`	MUST	Offering, capability, category or service references.
`channelType`	MUST	Web form, API, WebMCP, MCP, A2A or another declared interface.
`endpoint`	MUST	Submission or discovery location.
`requiredInputs`	MUST	Structured minimum data required for processing.
`validationRules`	SHOULD	Field, cross-field and business-rule validation.
`authentication`	MUST	Public, verified-buyer or declared authentication scheme.
`humanReview`	MUST	Whether review is required, by which role and under which triggers.
`expectedResult`	MUST	Acknowledgement, qualification, clarification, quotation or another defined outcome.
`privacyUrl`	MUST	Information about use, retention and sharing of submitted data.
`termsUrl`	SHOULD	Route or enquiry conditions.
`status`	MUST	Active, paused or retired.
`lastCheckedAt`	SHOULD	Most recent operational verification of the route.

Input definitions

Each required or optional input should declare a stable field identifier, label, description, data type, required status, unit where applicable, allowed range or values, confidentiality class, validation message and example.

A profile may make an input conditionally required. For example, an installation drawing may be required only when the buyer requests integration into an existing line.

7. The Direct RFQ Request Envelope

The Request Envelope is the portable representation of a submitted enquiry. The same envelope should be interpretable regardless of whether it arrived through a form or an agent interface.

Core request groups

Standard and identifiers: standard version, request ID, route ID, creation time, language and correlation identifiers.
Parties: buyer organisation, submitting principal, represented organisation, intended recipient and relevant contact roles.
Authority context: whether the submitter may request information, receive confidential data, negotiate or perform another bounded action.
Intent: product quotation, solution selection, service, rental, capacity, spare parts, compliance or another profile-defined purpose.
Line items or work packages: item references, descriptions, quantities, units, configurations and substitutions.
Requirements: technical, quality, regulatory, sustainability, security, service, documentation and acceptance conditions.
Delivery context: destination, requested date or date range, schedule, packaging, installation and Incoterms where relevant.
Commercial context: currency, budget indication, target quantities, forecast horizon, contract duration and requested price basis when appropriate.
Attachments: controlled file references, media types, hashes, classifications and access conditions.
Response preferences: required result, response deadline, language, channel and permitted recipients.
Policy acknowledgements: privacy, confidentiality, terms, consent and declarations required by the route.

Requirements must be testable where possible

“High quality” is difficult to evaluate. “ISO 9001 certification valid on the quotation date” is testable. Profiles should prefer structured requirements with an operator, value, unit, tolerance, evidence expectation and criticality.

A requirement should be identifiable as:

mandatory — failure means the supplier or offer does not qualify;
preferred — influences evaluation but permits alternatives;
informational — provides context without acting as a gate;
negotiable — may be changed through an explicit clarification or quotation process.

Units and currencies

Quantities, dimensions, tolerances, rates and currencies must carry their unit or code. A number without a declared unit should not be used for a material commercial decision.

8. RFQ lifecycle and statuses

A Direct RFQ lifecycle separates message delivery from commercial evaluation. A successful HTTP response or agent task completion does not necessarily mean that the supplier has accepted the request.

Status	Meaning	Commercial effect
`draft`	The request is being prepared and may be incomplete.	No submission.
`submitted`	The sender has transmitted the request.	Delivery is attempted; acceptance is not implied.
`received`	The recipient system has recorded the request.	Technical receipt only.
`invalid`	Syntax, schema, authentication or mandatory validation failed.	No commercial evaluation.
`needsInformation`	Material clarification or missing data prevents evaluation.	The request remains open if the route permits revision.
`inQualification`	The recipient is checking fit, scope, identity or policy.	No commitment to quote.
`qualified`	The request is suitable for quotation or detailed review.	Eligibility, not a price or delivery commitment.
`inReview`	Commercial, technical, compliance or other review is active.	No commitment unless separately declared.
`declined`	The supplier will not continue with the request.	No quotation is expected.
`quoted`	An authorised quotation has been issued.	Governed by the quotation’s scope, validity and terms.
`noQuote`	The supplier closes the request without a quotation.	No offer.
`cancelled`	An authorised party withdraws the request.	Further work stops subject to route policy.
`expired`	The request or quotation passed its declared validity period.	A new submission or confirmation may be required.
`closed`	The workflow has completed and no action is pending.	Historical state.

Versioning and clarification

A material change to quantity, specification, delivery destination, commercial conditions or requested scope should create a new request version. The system should preserve the previous version and indicate which version is currently being evaluated.

Clarification messages should reference the request ID, version and the requirement or field being discussed. Free-form conversation may accompany the workflow, but it should not silently overwrite structured facts.

Idempotency and duplicate control

Machine-actionable endpoints should support an idempotency mechanism so that retries do not create multiple commercial opportunities. Duplicate detection must not merge unrelated requests solely because their text is similar.

9. Response semantics

The response must identify what kind of result is being returned. The minimum response envelope should contain:

the original RFQ identifier and evaluated version;
a response identifier and creation time;
the supplier, route operator and authorised issuer where relevant;
the response type and lifecycle status;
accepted, rejected or unresolved requirements;
clarification questions or next actions;
validity and response deadlines;
applicable terms, privacy and confidentiality references;
a quotation reference when a formal quotation is issued.

Acknowledgement

An acknowledgement confirms receipt or recording. It must not be worded as an order confirmation, accepted price, reserved capacity or promised delivery date unless an authorised system has actually made that commitment.

Qualification response

A qualification response indicates whether the supplier may proceed, which information is missing and which constraints require discussion. It is not necessarily a commitment to prepare a quotation.

Quotation

A quotation should state the issuing entity, price basis, currency, taxes, quantities, unit, delivery basis, validity period, assumptions, exclusions, lead time, payment conditions, applicable terms and approval identity. A quotation may reference the RFQ rather than duplicate every request field.

No-quote decision

The supplier may decline because of scope, territory, capacity, policy, risk, missing information or another permitted reason. Reason disclosure can be limited when revealing it would create legal, security or commercial risk.

10. Interface independence

Interface	Role in Direct RFQ	Important limitation
Human web form	Renders route fields, validation and guidance for a person.	Must preserve the structured request rather than flatten it into an email body.
REST or event API	Enables system-to-system submission, status and response.	HTTP success is not commercial acceptance.
OpenAPI	Describes HTTP operations and payloads for tooling.	OpenAPI describes the interface; Direct RFQ supplies B2B request semantics and policies.
WebMCP	Can expose an RFQ action as a structured browser tool.	WebMCP remains an emerging Community Group incubation and should not be the only production route without a compatibility plan.
MCP	Can expose route discovery, preparation, submission or status tools to agents.	Tool availability does not establish buyer identity or commercial authority.
A2A	An operational agent may advertise an RFQ-related skill and manage the interaction.	The technical A2A Agent Card does not replace the RFQ Route Descriptor or business qualification record.
Email	May serve as a fallback or notification channel.	Unstructured email should not be the canonical machine interface for a conforming structured endpoint.

As of 20 July 2026, DirectRFQ recommends JSON Schema Draft 2020-12 for portable data validation and supports OpenAPI 3.2 descriptions for HTTP interfaces. Implementers may use later compatible versions after testing and publication of their declared profile.

WebMCP may be offered as an additional action surface. It should be described accurately as an emerging browser API incubated in the W3C Web Machine Learning Community Group, not as a completed W3C Recommendation.

11. Identity, trust and commercial authority

Separate the parties

A Direct RFQ may involve several identities:

the buyer organisation;
the human or agent submitting the request;
the represented buyer when an intermediary acts on its behalf;
the supplier receiving the request;
the operator of the RFQ route;
the marketplace or integrator routing the request;
the entity expected to issue the quotation;
the eventual contracting entities.

These roles must not be merged merely because they share a domain, platform account or agent endpoint.

Authentication is not authorisation

Authentication establishes an identity or credential. Authorisation determines whether that principal may submit the request, access protected data, negotiate, approve a price, issue a quotation or create a binding commitment.

Every material action should check the current mandate, scope, thresholds and revocation state. A technical agent skill or successful API call does not create commercial authority.

Evidence and claims

Supplier claims, buyer declarations and documents should carry provenance and verification status where they materially affect qualification. Signed messages can protect integrity and origin but do not independently prove that every commercial claim is true.

12. Security, privacy and operational controls

A Direct RFQ endpoint accepts data, files, links and potentially agent-generated content from outside the supplier’s trust boundary. All submitted content must be treated as untrusted input.

Minimum controls

encrypted transport and appropriate authentication for protected routes;
authorisation checks based on identity, role, scope and mandate;
schema, type, length, range and cross-field validation;
rate limits, spam controls and abuse detection;
file size and media-type limits, malware scanning and isolation;
protection against prompt injection, SSRF, unsafe redirects, active content and decompression bombs;
idempotency, replay defence and duplicate controls;
audit records for material changes and decisions;
data classification, retention, deletion and access-control policies;
incident response, revocation and fallback procedures;
human escalation for regulated, high-value, uncertain or exceptional requests.

Agent-specific rule

An AI system must not execute instructions contained in descriptions, attachments or linked documents merely because they appear inside an RFQ. Content should be interpreted as data unless an authorised workflow explicitly designates a field as an executable instruction.

Privacy transparency

The route must explain why buyer data is collected, who controls and receives it, how long it is retained, whether it is used to train or evaluate AI systems, and how correction or deletion requests can be made where applicable.

Public metadata warning: Route descriptors may be indexed and copied. They must never contain passwords, private keys, access tokens, confidential pricing logic, personal data without a lawful basis or internal security details that create unnecessary exposure.

13. Cross-industry core and industry profiles

The core standard defines identity, routing, request, response, status, policy and governance. An industry profile adds the fields and rules required for a specific commercial context without changing the core meaning.

Profile example	Typical extensions
Industrial manufacturing	Materials, drawings, tolerances, processes, annual demand, batch size, quality plans, PPAP, tooling and target production date.
Machines and automation	Product handled, throughput, layout, utilities, safety category, integration scope, commissioning, training and service territory.
Logistics	Origin, destination, freight class, dimensions, weights, temperature, hazardous status, schedule and service level.
Software and SaaS	User counts, deployment, integrations, data residency, security requirements, support level, term and procurement process.
Professional services	Objectives, deliverables, team, skills, location, timeline, dependencies, acceptance criteria and budget model.
Energy and infrastructure	Site, capacity, connection conditions, permits, generation profile, metering, compliance and project milestones.
Compliance evidence	Framework, control scope, evidence period, assurance level, access conditions and document validity.

A profile must identify its version, owner, compatibility with the Direct RFQ core, mandatory fields, controlled vocabularies, validation rules and examples. Proprietary extension fields should use a namespace to avoid collisions.

14. Conformance model

Conformance describes what an implementation actually supports. It does not certify the supplier, guarantee a quotation or establish legal compliance.

Level	Conformance label	Minimum capability
DRFQ-1	Declared Route	A public Route Descriptor identifies the intent, recipient, applicable offer, required inputs, expected result, privacy and status.
DRFQ-2	Structured Request	The route produces a machine-readable request with stable identifiers, typed fields, units and validation.
DRFQ-3	Interoperable Endpoint	A documented API or agent tool accepts the request and returns structured acknowledgements and errors.
DRFQ-4	Lifecycle Managed	Status, clarification, versioning, idempotency, response and audit semantics are implemented.
DRFQ-5	Governed Agent-Actionable	Authenticated agents may perform bounded actions under declared authorisation, approval and escalation controls.
DRFQ-6	Transaction-Connected	An approved quotation can enter an order or contract workflow through a separately governed authority boundary.

A publisher should declare the supported level, profile, version, interface status and last test date. Partial implementations should not claim a higher level based on roadmap functionality.

Suggested conformance statement: “This route implements the Direct RFQ Standard v0.1 at level DRFQ-3 for the declared profile. Conformance indicates structural and interface compatibility. It does not constitute supplier verification, an obligation to quote, a binding offer or authority for an AI agent to conclude a transaction.”

15. Illustrative Direct RFQ request

This abbreviated example demonstrates the separation between route, request, requirements and authority. It is informative and does not replace the published schema.

{
  "standard": "https://directrfq.com/standards/direct-rfq/0.1",
  "standardVersion": "0.1",
  "rfqId": "rfq-01K0EXAMPLE8V9Q2Y7H5M",
  "routeId": "packaging-line-solution-selection",
  "version": 1,
  "status": "submitted",
  "createdAt": "2026-07-20T10:30:00Z",
  "intent": "solutionSelection",
  "buyer": {
    "organisationId": "https://buyer.example/id/legal-entity",
    "legalName": "Example Foods Manufacturing Ltd.",
    "country": "PL"
  },
  "submittedBy": {
    "type": "authorisedAgent",
    "principalId": "buyer-procurement-agent",
    "authority": ["prepareRfq", "submitRfq"],
    "mayAcceptQuotation": false
  },
  "recipient": {
    "organisationId": "https://supplier.example/id/legal-entity",
    "legalName": "Example Packaging Systems Sp. z o.o."
  },
  "requestedSolution": {
    "categoryId": "end-of-line-packaging",
    "productToHandle": "cartons",
    "requiredThroughput": {
      "value": 42,
      "unit": "cartons/minute"
    },
    "installationCountry": "PL",
    "targetCommissioningDate": "2027-03-31"
  },
  "requirements": [
    {
      "requirementId": "safety-ce",
      "type": "compliance",
      "statement": "Machinery must be supplied with applicable EU conformity documentation",
      "criticality": "mandatory",
      "evidenceExpected": true
    }
  ],
  "attachments": [
    {
      "attachmentId": "layout-01",
      "name": "production-layout.pdf",
      "mediaType": "application/pdf",
      "confidentialityClass": "confidential",
      "sha256": "EXAMPLE_HASH_VALUE"
    }
  ],
  "requestedResult": "qualificationResponseOrQuotation",
  "responseRequestedBy": "2026-07-24T15:00:00Z",
  "policyAcknowledgements": {
    "privacyNoticeVersion": "2026-06-01",
    "rfqTermsVersion": "0.1"
  }
}

16. Implementation roadmap

Phase 1 — Define the business routes

Identify recurring commercial intents rather than publishing one universal enquiry form.
Assign each route to the correct business, offer, territory and responsible function.
Document what a useful first request must contain and what can wait until clarification.
Declare the expected result and non-binding commercial effect.

Phase 2 — Structure and validate

Create stable field and route identifiers.
Define data types, units, ranges, vocabularies and conditional requirements.
Add privacy, confidentiality, file and human-review policies.
Produce a machine-readable Route Descriptor and Request Envelope.

Phase 3 — Connect the workflow

Map requests into CRM, CPQ, ERP, ticketing or engineering workflows.
Return structured acknowledgements, validation errors and request identifiers.
Implement clarification, versioning, status and no-quote paths.
Monitor response targets and route health.

Phase 4 — Add agent interfaces

Publish OpenAPI, WebMCP, MCP or A2A actions only for real operational functions.
Authenticate principals and enforce authorisation separately.
Add idempotency, audit, confirmation and escalation controls.
Test adversarial inputs, file handling, prompt injection and failure recovery.

Phase 5 — Connect quotations and transactions

Define authorised quotation issuers and approval thresholds.
Preserve the relationship between RFQ version and quotation scope.
Declare validity, commercial terms, exclusions and acceptance mechanism.
Cross the order or contract boundary only through a separately governed workflow.

17. Relationship to the DirectRFQ architecture

The Direct RFQ Standard is one component of a broader machine-readable B2B system:

A2A Business Card — identifies and qualifies the business.
Product Card — describes a product or commercial offering.
Capability Card — describes what the business can perform or produce.
Direct RFQ Route Descriptor — defines how a qualified request should be submitted.
Direct RFQ Request — carries the buyer’s structured need.
Quotation — carries an authorised commercial response.
Technical A2A Agent Card — describes an operational A2A agent that may expose or support relevant skills.

The records should be linked through canonical identifiers rather than collapsed into one oversized document.

18. Frequently asked questions

Does Direct RFQ mean that a supplier must provide a price?

No. The supplier may request clarification, qualify the opportunity, decline or return a no-quote decision. The standard improves the request pathway; it does not impose an obligation to quote.

Can Direct RFQ work without AI?

Yes. A structured web form and a disciplined supplier workflow can implement the standard. AI agents are optional consumers and operators of the same semantics.

Is Direct RFQ the same as an A2A Agent Card?

No. An A2A Agent Card describes a technical agent and its interfaces. A Direct RFQ Route Descriptor describes a commercial enquiry route. An operational A2A agent may expose a skill that uses Direct RFQ.

Can a Direct RFQ be sent by email?

Email may be used as a notification or fallback, but a conforming structured implementation should preserve the canonical request object, identifiers and statuses outside the email body.

Must every RFQ use the same fields?

No. The core envelope is shared, while the route and industry profile define category-specific information. A logistics request should not use the same technical fields as a SaaS security review.

Can the route collect confidential drawings?

Yes, if the route declares access, classification, storage, retention and protection conditions. Sensitive files should not be exposed through public URLs or copied into public metadata.

Can an AI agent submit a Direct RFQ?

Yes, when the interface permits it and the agent acts under a valid identity and mandate. The request should disclose the submitting principal and should not imply authority to accept a quotation unless that authority is separately granted.

Does schema validation mean the request is qualified?

No. Schema validation checks structure and some rules. Commercial qualification checks supplier fit, feasibility, policy, evidence and risk.

Can a marketplace use the standard?

Yes. The marketplace should preserve the buyer, represented supplier, route operator, data publisher, quotation issuer and contracting entities as distinct roles.

Is a quotation automatically binding?

That depends on applicable law, wording, authority, terms and acceptance process. The standard requires the quotation to declare its validity and commercial effect; it does not create universal legal effect.

Does Direct RFQ replace CPQ or ERP?

No. It provides a standard intake and response boundary that can connect to CPQ, ERP, CRM, procurement, engineering and service systems.

Who owns the Direct RFQ Standard?

DirectRFQ.com is the specification owner for version 0.1. External standards and protocols retain their own governance and trademarks.

19. The DirectRFQ proposition

B2B commerce does not become agent-ready merely because a company adds a chatbot or publishes an API. Agents and buyers need a reliable path from discovery to qualification, from qualification to a well-formed request, and from the request to an accountable response.

The Direct RFQ Standard creates that path without assuming that every product has a fixed price, every buyer is pre-approved or every decision can be automated.

It gives suppliers a controlled way to expose commercial action. It gives buyers a clearer way to describe demand. It gives AI agents boundaries, inputs and outcomes they can understand. And it leaves authority, judgement and contractual commitment where they belong: inside explicit governance.

DirectRFQ helps B2B companies design category-specific RFQ routes, machine-readable request structures and governed agent interfaces.
Request a Direct RFQ architecture assessment to identify your highest-value enquiry routes and the shortest credible path from a generic form to an interoperable, agent-actionable B2B workflow.

Publication metadata

Recommended URL: /direct-rfq-standard-definition-architecture/

Meta title: Direct RFQ Standard: Definition and Architecture | DirectRFQ

Meta description: The canonical Direct RFQ standard for structured, qualified and machine-actionable B2B quotation requests across forms, APIs and AI-agent interfaces.

Primary keyword: Direct RFQ Standard

Supporting keywords: Direct RFQ definition, RFQ architecture, structured request for quotation, agentic procurement, B2B AI agents, machine-readable RFQ, RFQ API

Suggested structured data: TechArticle, DefinedTerm, FAQPage where eligible, BreadcrumbList and Organization

Canonical owner: DirectRFQ.com

References and interoperability context

JSON Schema specification — current published version: Draft 2020-12.
OpenAPI Specification 3.2.0 — interface-description context for HTTP implementations.
Agent2Agent Protocol 1.0 specification — optional agent interoperability layer.
WebMCP Community Group Draft — optional emerging browser tool surface.
RFC 2119 and RFC 8174 — interpretation of normative requirement keywords.
DirectRFQ A2A Business Card Specification v0.1.

This page defines an independent DirectRFQ framework. References to external standards describe interoperability options and do not imply endorsement, affiliation or official extension status.

Hello world!