Ballot for charter-ietf-diem
Block
Yes
No Objection
No Record
Summary: Has a BLOCK. Has enough positions to pass once BLOCK positions are resolved.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
A few scoping questions: ** The introduction and architectural considerations sections describe the properties of an emblem. The text would benefit from some notional scoping definition of a “bearer” that is being bound the to the digital emblem. -- Is a bearer an identifier such as an IP address or domain name? -- If the bearer is an identifier, is there a fixed list that the WG will focus on? ** The concept of validation and binding are introduced, and there is a deliverable of an “emblem binding protocol”. Is the notional behavior that the binding protocol links, with some unspecified degree of “assurance”, that the identifier (bearer) is associated with the emblem which is retrieved via the discovery protocol? ** Per the initial scope stating that “the DIEM WG will ensure maximum reuse of work for emblem representation and binding”: -- How will the WG using this scoping statement without any specific pointers on existing emblem representations? Or bindings? Is it possible to be more specific? -- Who is defining the emblem format for which this WG would create a binding and discovery mechanism? ** Is the text in the architecture intended to constrain the DIEM WG? For example: -- “Therefore, to be effective, the semantics of an emblem must be well known, easily recognizable, and distinguishable from other emblems” – what does this impose as a requirement on the DIEM WG? What does “easily recognizable” and “distinguishable” mean in the digital sense? -- “Digital emblems can be unsigned, self-signed, or signed by a trust anchor”, is DIEM going to define a “binding protocol” and “discovery protocol” for emblems of these three flavors? -- The text in this section says “Cryptographic verification can be optional as long as the emblem can be correctly interpreted” but later in the deliverables there is “If a securing mechanism is described, at least one mandatory to implement cryptographic algorithm which is already supported by the securing mechanism must be described as well” which seems to describe an MTI design which will require cryptography ** Per “A discovery mechanism for the initial work will only be specified by this group after the initial emblem binding protocol is completed (see the Deliverables section below)”, I’m missing something obvious. I read this text as the first task for the WG to be “complete an emblem binding protocol” and then “work on a discovery mechanism”. However, in the Deliverables section there is a single specification (#3) for something that is called a “protocol specification describing the discovery of digital emblems” with a milestone of “A protocol specification describing the discovery of digital emblems”. It appears that there is one specification for a “binding and discovery mechanism”. Is the intent that the WG will only work on part of the document first? ** Per “The DIEM WG will work on the following deliverables for the defined scope strictly in this order”, and the order is use case/requirements, architecture, and binding+discovery. The milestones say the use cases date is first on Aug-2025, next is the protocol on March-2026, and then architecture in Dec-2026. Are the dates incorrect for the milestones because they don’t align with the required priority?
# Introduction ** Per “An emblem is a device, symbol, or figure adopted and used as an identifying mark”, what is a device that is also an emblem? I thought you put symbols that are emblems on a device. ** Per “There is a need to sense emblems/symbols through digital communication channels”, if symbols are subject of emblem types per the first sentence, why is “emblems/symbols” used here? ** Is the sentence “The presence of a digital emblem represents a new signal available to cyber operators” intended to narrow the scope? Is the signal useful to other users? Wouldn’t there be a safety use case for the ISO 7010 symbols? ** Editorial. There are a number of details here that might not be needed to set the stage for the idea of digital emblems. Consider if the following sentences are needed: -- "In culture, ... " -- "In speech, emblems are specific nonverbal gestures ..." (this doesn't provide a ready analog to the digital version) -- "Similarly, the "blue shield" ..." (there is already the example of the Red Cross/Crescent/Crystal) -- "The DIEM WG will ..." (as this doesn't provide any scoping that isn't covered later in detail) ** Consider if this would improve the flow: OLD Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the Red Cross, Red Crescent, and Red Crystal emblems are symbols of protection. ISO 7010 defines a set of emblems that can be used to identify hazards, these include the skull and crossbones for toxic material, the ionizing radiation symbol and the biological hazard symbol. NEW Emblems such as the Red Cross, Red Crescent, and Red Crystal can be symbols of protection governed by International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Emblems can also be used to identify hazards via the skull and crossbones symbol for toxic materials or the ionizing radiation symbol for radiation defined by ISO 7010. ** Today often these emblems/symbols require a sense of sight, or touch to become known to the receiver. -- s/Today often/In the physical world/ -- Who is a receiver? How is that role different than the "validator" in the architectural considerations? # Architecture ** Are these architectural considerations being asserted for all emblems? digital emblems? Or digital emblems as considered by the WG? “Digital” isn’t added as an adjective of emblem until the last paragraph. ** Per ‘"To validate an emblem" means to confirm the authenticity or legitimacy of a particular symbol or design, often by checking its details against a known standard or reference point’, in this context does legitimacy mean that that the entity bearing the mark is correctly displaying it? Is entitled to display it? The emblem is of the right shape/color commensurate with a particular design? The binding between the bearer and emblem? # Initial Scope ** Editorial. It seems odd to put the restriction in on the binding+discovery mechanism in this section, and then to introduce additional sequencing requirements in the deliverables section. # Milestones ** The milestones don’t describe what will happen with the named artifact by the date. Common options include WG adoption? WGLC? PubReq?
Thanks for continuing the work on this topic. The charter has some typography errors, e.g., an orphan double quote, a wrongly formatted list in the introduction. Perhaps, s/The WG will ensure maximum reuse of work/The WG will ensure maximum reuse of work and existing protocols/ ? Perhaps, s/The working group will liaise with appropriate organizations /The working group will liaise with appropriate external organizations / even if somehow obvious
# Internet AD comments for charter-ietf-diem-00-03 CC @ekline * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md * "Handling Ballot Positions": - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ ## Comments * Thank you for all the effort put into the more detailed explanations. Hugely helpful. * If I'm reading things correctly, this work focuses on the validation of the emblem, and not the bearer NOR the relationship of the emblem to the bearer. Assuming success with the current objectives, would it later become a goal (after a rechartering) to look at validating the emblem<->bearer relationship? Just curious.
Keeping all the concerns expressed by Erik in mind ... Paragraph 4 > There are three dimensions to digital emblems: Asset Type, Emblem Type, and > Validator Relationship. Assets bound to digital emblems can be analog (e.g., a > vehicle) or digital (e.g., a web server). They differ in the initial > interaction between the asset and the validator. Digital Emblems can fall into > multiple types (e.g., self-signed, attested, etc.) that will affect how a > validator interprets and trusts the assertions made within the emblem. The > relationship between the asset and the validator will influence requirements on > how validators retrieve digital emblems for the asset. These three dimensions > will be key drivers in the development of a digital emblem architecture. Could the three dimensions be specified as three bullet items? Also, a relationship is usually a two-way street. So instead of "Validator Relationship", would it be better to say "Asset Validator Relationship"? Finally, is "Asset Type" the best way to define how an emblem is asserted? Would it be better to call it "Assertion Type"? Paragraph 4 > The working group will focus its initial work on assets that are discovered by > use of digital communication as the primary interaction method that have the > unique challenge of the validator remaining unknown to the operator of the > asset. Other use cases for future consideration may also cover assets that lack > this requirement or even require separate digital discovery. The WG will ensure > maximum reuse of work for emblem representation and binding. A discovery > mechanism for the initial work will only be specified by this group after the > initial emblem binding protocol is completed (see the Deliverables section > below).” The charter talks about "maximum reuse of work", but does not identify where or what that work is. If it is about the ability to discover, it should probably say so. Paragraph 4 > The working group will liaise with appropriate organizations and relevant IETF > WGs when defining emblem formats, validation, and discovery mechanisms to > facilitate re-use of existing protocols and capabilities. It would help to identify which IETF WGs this WG sees possible interaction with. The same for organizations it wants to liaise with. Ask about any chair changes.
I have no objection to starting with the newly proposed initial scope. It might not be ideal and fully representing what everyone wanted, but a good compromise to start.
Thanks for your work updating the charter. Questions: - What does "Only discovery mechanisms where the validation remains unknown to the bearer of the emblem" mean? Do you mean, the **result of** the validation? Nits: - "sight, or touch" -- remove comma - I find the term "cyber operators" to be imprecise and having the aroma of outdated jargon, but I don't have a suggestion for an improvement, nor do I think it's essential to fix.
I support Erik's concern and hence Roman's BLOCK position. There's potential confusion with the BIMI effort, which will be seeking chartering sometime this year, so it would be helpful for some precision to be added about what exactly the emblem is. I can't recall where I saw them, but I remember seeing some examples of use cases. Including one or more specific use cases might help here.
Supporting Roman.