[Diem] Re: Some high-level thoughts on scoping

Dennis Jackson <ietf@dennis-jackson.uk> Mon, 01 July 2024 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@dennis-jackson.uk>
X-Original-To: diem@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: diem@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1084AC1519B2 for <diem@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 09:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dennis-jackson.uk
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BGOAaFUoG024 for <diem@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 09:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout-p-101.mailbox.org (mout-p-101.mailbox.org [80.241.56.151]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD8FEC151995 for <diem@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 09:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org (smtp1.mailbox.org [10.196.197.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-101.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4WCWxQ1XY6z9sbg for <diem@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 18:40:26 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dennis-jackson.uk; s=MBO0001; t=1719852026; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=9XqMv1K+u9IAFg24bwditlltnZ/0OJ2n7QO5zTF0s4o=; b=P4s+cfxnfw3XUTRonluxq5acT44OCZ+Undf6UhLTLURKiSviCrFRWwcDdPHnBgb0SZBPmD 8kUF+6lu7jsCXMuSSqHkn7fzgG67bk2DAcgPyHvJEU9VDQUojT/++wVSZQxKjTddY4dfKv aJELSCuPRBXF81g8ou525Phm+azJbnb864ryCvjsVBxvPUh7ahDnppm0/190wyVrHf+tnn WXPGb9YtU+9e5c8JAPbFm8Q1XFotkmul3AGVlvtwMT65DXtq+V3SdU9qa4+5RuAmVOLPo8 YfTsZrI6Gd4+JH2Hf7kC0gk67cCGZ4lNy9sL3l0EmqMpd7wwXkP2B5SHWicyzw==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------mHPoeBkiGygekpdcxAbGN7lD"
Message-ID: <6acc90a3-d66a-41cb-a33e-ebc4ecf4310d@dennis-jackson.uk>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 17:40:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Dennis Jackson <ietf@dennis-jackson.uk>
To: diem@ietf.org
References: <CABcZeBNxiUuXRykDSZ8rZ64JNKUgO76Ztdd7JwQv-RTqMgyDQg@mail.gmail.com> <A56BB152-A05F-45DE-B434-68339C08DB5A@pch.net>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <A56BB152-A05F-45DE-B434-68339C08DB5A@pch.net>
Message-ID-Hash: GTHMQO232YQTMQ43OSL2MDJLQY5E4HLY
X-Message-ID-Hash: GTHMQO232YQTMQ43OSL2MDJLQY5E4HLY
X-MailFrom: ietf@dennis-jackson.uk
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Diem] Re: Some high-level thoughts on scoping
List-Id: Discussion of digital emblems <diem.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diem/4oSkrAAWsY-liKfQ1fyutwMPj90>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/diem>
List-Help: <mailto:diem-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:diem-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:diem@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:diem-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:diem-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Bill,

On 30/06/2024 03:22, Bill Woodcock wrote:

> I would suggest that the IETF is not in the business of crafting 
> standards to describe individual products built for individual 
> organizations, but instead is in the business of crafting open 
> standards that solve issues of interoperability between multiple 
> stakeholders. The former don’t require standardization, while the 
> latter can only exist with standardization.

I think this is a fairly serious misunderstanding of the role the 
emblems play.

The emblems are applied by the appropriate protected parties (inc 
medical facilities, the ICRC and national societies) on a broad range of 
software / services / devices. The emblems are consumed by parties to 
armed conflict on their own software / services / devices.

Although the ICRC has a privileged role to play in stewarding the 
emblem, the emblem is used by a wide variety of stakeholders in all 
manners of conflicts and critically is used to convey information 
between different and possibly hostile stakeholders using very different 
implementations. It is emphatically something that needs standardization.

Best,
Dennis