[Diem] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: charter scoping proposal: authenticated digital distinctive emblems and signs

[Tommy Jensen <[e-mail]>]

Hey Nick,

Thank you for sharing this. Bias disclosure: as noted, I was a contributor to this proposed text.

Hey Brian,

I disagree that this is premature. The point of having the mailing list ahead of IETF 120 was to jump start the conversation, and I certainly think a valid argument to make in that discussion is that the current spread of use cases and requirements is pretty wild for a single future group or existing WG to address. I support Nick's proposed text as a suggestion for carving out a workable scope to start with, or to work on individually in parallel to other scoped proposals in the same space.

I would suggest that the concept of "digital emblems" as presented by our BoF proposal is so diverse as to warrant recognition of some use cases as distinct from others. That is not the same as saying the other use cases are not valid, as you know from our co-authoring of the BoF proposal. I simply believe it is in the IETF's best interest to scope the work, either in prioritized serial order or in parallel.

I'm concerned by the amount of feedback we've received off-list that can be summarized as "this long list of requirements is too noisy to act on at once". I'm also fairly confident that the is no comprehensive solution that can address all of these use cases at once, which would be the only reason to try to define a single scope that includes them all.

Of course we should debate that. That's why we're here. But I think having one or more concrete proposals for charters of a future WG, even though this BoF is non-WG forming, will more usefully guide the discussion than an open field discussion.

Thanks,
Tommy
________________________________
From: Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 10:35 AM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Diem] Re: charter scoping proposal: authenticated digital distinctive emblems and signs

Hi Nick,
      Appreciate the contribution, but this scoping seems a bit
premature before we have had a chance to discuss the variety of use
cases identified in the problem statement draft. There are stakeholders
who have expressed needs for capabilities that go beyond network
endpoints. We need to hear from them to ensure we understand the
technical needs before we start drafting a WG charter.

Regards,
Brian

On 6/25/24 11:05 AM, Nick Doty wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> My understanding of the community's interest in digital emblems is that the
> potential applications, related to the idea of expressing legal protections
> in digital form, could be very broad, but that there is a cluster of
> similar use cases with similar requirements that would be a promising
> starting point for standardization.
>
> I've drafted some charter scoping text for work around digital emblems to
> communicate protections of international humanitarian law of distinctive
> emblems and signs, for network-accessible resources that may be targeted by
> cyberattack in times of conflict. I believe this work would be useful for
> digitalizing the Red Cross/Red Crescent/Red Crystal emblems, but would also
> extend to a set of related uses.
>
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnpdoty%2Femblem-scope%2Fblob%2Fmain%2Fauthenticated-digital-emblem-scoping.md&data=05%7C02%7CJensen.Thomas%40microsoft.com%7Cb2868c9b6da643cddab708dc953d7bd7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638549338522919469%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wFzp5w0gmBYCYlmOsCXajbdAhblAn9aDkc6lDFVzOhQ%3D&reserved=0<https://github.com/npdoty/emblem-scope/blob/main/authenticated-digital-emblem-scoping.md>
>
> This is shared just as a potential starting point for discussion on what
> could be an effective, scoped program of work for a Working Group. I
> presented an earlier version of this to a workshop of some industry and
> civil society folks invited by the International Committee of the Red
> Cross; thanks to that group for feedback, and to Tommy Jensen for a couple
> PRs. Discussion on-list is of course welcome, and issues and pull requests
> on the repo are welcome too if that's an easier way to communicate.
>
> Cheers,
> Nick
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Diem mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]