[JakubWorek]

Description

According to spec https://a2a-protocol.org/latest/specification/#111-protocol-requirements HTTP+JSON should support Content Type application/a2a+json and ACTS runner rely on that.

Adding support of this Content Type brings ACTS results
From:

========================================================
ACROSS 3 BINDING(S)
========================================================
  111 test(s) in all, each scored on the binding(s) it targets
  jsonrpc   93/101 passed   must 57/59   8 failed, 0 error(s)   NOT CONFORMANT
  grpc       83/88 passed   must 46/47   5 failed, 0 error(s)   NOT CONFORMANT
  rest       23/92 passed   must 13/49   69 failed, 0 error(s)   NOT CONFORMANT

To:

========================================================
ACROSS 3 BINDING(S)
========================================================
  111 test(s) in all, each scored on the binding(s) it targets
  jsonrpc   93/101 passed   must 57/59   8 failed, 0 error(s)   NOT CONFORMANT
  grpc       83/88 passed   must 46/47   5 failed, 0 error(s)   NOT CONFORMANT
  rest       86/92 passed   must 47/49   6 failed, 0 error(s)   NOT CONFORMANT

[ehsavoie]

@JakubWorek this is not in the 1.0.0 version of the specs https://a2a-protocol.org/v1.0.0/specification/#111-protocol-requirements. We can accept it on the server side but for the response I would still keep the initial one.
@kabir WDYT ?

[JakubWorek]

@JakubWorek this is not in the 1.0.0 version of the specs https://a2a-protocol.org/v1.0.0/specification/#111-protocol-requirements. We can accept it on the server side but for the response I would still keep the initial one. @kabir WDYT ?

Agree on that, I'll wait for response from @kabir and adjust my changes if this solution will be accepted

[kabir]

I agree with @ehsavoie

[kabir]

@JakubWorek BTW the 1.0.1 version of the spec is very confusing :-) It changes a bunch of stuff, while both 1.0.0 and 1.0.1 have 1.0 in the version header, so there is nothing to distinguish between the two.
When looking at https://a2a-protocol.org/latest/specification/, it seems to still be 1.0.0. So we've been ignoring 1.0.1 since we don't know what to do with it.

[JakubWorek]

I agree with @ehsavoie

Okay, I adjusted mine solution

[ehsavoie]

Thanks @JakubWorek