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

[Serge Droz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dennis


I think what Bill tries to say is, that there are many more emblems than 
the ICRC one.

Ideally you have a standard that allows you produce an Emblem for the 
use case at hand, so you can use the same tech to read an ICRC emblem as 
you can use to read e.g. an emblem designating a nuclera facility or a 
piece of art.

But yes, there are many parties that should be able to read an ICRC 
emblem, or any other one. But we want to avoid a situation where a 
standard is defined that covers only the requirements of one stakeholder.

  So I don´t think there is a contradiction.

Best

Serge


On 01/07/2024 18:40, Dennis Jackson wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Diem mailing list [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email [e-mail]