[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00                                                            
Network Working Group                                         T. Doty
INTERNET-DRAFT                                  Network Systems Corp.
Category: Informational                                   A. Molitor
                                                Network Systems Corp.
                                                          August 1996


            Proposed Mechanism for Self-Labeling of Content

                   <draft-rfced-info-molitor-00.txt>

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet Draft.  Internet Drafts are working
   documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas,
   and its Working Groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet Drafts.

   Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months.  Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
   other documents at any time.  It is not appropriate to use Internet
   Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a
   "working draft" or "work in progress."

   To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
   "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the internet-drafts Shadow
   Directories on:

         ftp.is.co.za (Africa)
         nic.nordu.net (Europe)
         ds.internic.net (US East Coast)
         ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast)
         munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim)

Introduction

   The wide-spread availability of information on the Internet which is
   deemed by some to contain objectionable content has led to calls by
   governmental and other bodies for a mandatory content label.  It is
   suggested that the existing IP Security Options might be used as a
   method for self regulation by individuals offering information to the
   Internet community.  It is further suggested that the options would
   allow a content labeling analogous to that used by the Motion Picture
   Industry (G, PG, R, NC-17) and television broadcasters (Adult
   Situations, Violence, Nudity, etc.).  Since these IP options are well
   understood by the technical community, such a mechanism of self-
   labeling would be compatible with existing, deployed internetworking
   equipment.



Doty & Molitor           Expires February 1997                  [Page 1]


Internet-Drafts        Content Labeling with IPSO            August 1996


   The naming of the various ratings and content categories is
   undeniably USA-centric, for which the authors apologize. We hope to
   define the terms sufficiently to make the meaning clear to the global
   readership.


Definitions

   Herein the word 'provider' or 'content provider' refers to the
   originator of a datagram. The model here is a host providing
   information content via any of a variety of possible protocols, to
   users of the Internet at large, either for a fee, or not.

   The word 'local authority' is meant relative to the recipient of a
   datagram, and is intended to mean an authority local to that
   recipient.  The model here is the campus network administration, or
   an Internet Service Provider through which a customer of a content
   provider gains Internet access.


General Content Label

   The Basic Security Option (BSO) [1] describes a mechanism for
   labeling information according to military classification level
   (Unclassified, Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret).  It is proposed
   that this field be used to label information according to the
   appropriateness of the audience: G (General audience, including small
   children),  PG (Parental Guidance suggested for non-adolescent
   children), R (Restricted to adults), or NC-17 (inappropriate for
   children under the age of maturity).  Since IP is globally deployed,
   and since opinions of what is and is not appropriate do vary across
   the globe, it is worth pointing out that this re-interpretation of
   the BSO provides a mechanism for agents to attach that agent's
   rating. In essence, this permits an opinion of the probable content
   of the payload to be attached to the datagram, which the recipient
   may or may not choose to examine. It is therefore quite by design
   that some information about the rating authority be included with the
   rating information.  The format of the Basic Security Option is shown
   in Figure 1.  The Basic Security Option has an assigned value of 0x82
   (decimal 130).

      +------------+------------+------------+-------------//----------+
      |  10000010  |  XXXXXXXX  |  SSSSSSSS  |  AAAAAAA[1]    AAAAAAA0 |
      |            |            |            |         [0]             |
      +------------+------------+------------+-------------//----------+
        TYPE = 130     LENGTH   CLASSIFICATION         PROTECTION
                                     LEVEL              AUTHORITY
                                                          FLAGS



Doty & Molitor           Expires February 1997                  [Page 2]


Internet-Drafts        Content Labeling with IPSO            August 1996


               Figure 1.  The Basic Security Option

   To maximize the compatibility with existing deployed equipment, it is
   suggested that the same mappings be used that are currently defined
   for classification levels.  The mappings defined in [1] are shown in
   Figure 2, along with the suggested new content labels.  It is
   suggested that the obsolete mappings as specified in [2] be used for
   self rating, to avoid possible confusion with datagrams containing an
   actual security classification level.

       Old Label      New Label      Value
       ------------   ---------      -----
       Unclassified      G           0x55
       Confidential      PG          0x7a
       Secret            R           0xad
       Top Secret        NC-17       0x3d

           Figure 2. Specific Definitions for Label Values

   [1] defined a Protection Authority Flag (PAF) that represented the
   classifying agency.  It is suggested that this field be used to
   specify the identify of the rating agency that determined the content
   label.  Currently, it is expected that most information labeled will
   be self-labeled (i.e. the content label will be assigned by the
   content provider); however, data could certainly be labeled by other
   agents, for example private companies who label data for a fee, or a
   local authority.  It is suggested that two values be initially
   defined: 0 (labeled by the content provider) and 1 (labeled by a
   local authority).

   It is surely very difficult to determine automatically the content of
   a datagram, for rating purposes. Thus, datagrams which are not
   explicitly labeled by the content provider can probably only be
   usefully be labeled based on the source IP address. However, this is
   still useful, since a local authority could potentially do the
   difficult work of mapping a large table of IP addresses into ratings
   at a location in the network where it can be most easily done. These
   ratings will then be carried with the packets, and can be very easily
   checked later, where the entire mapping table would be very
   inconvenient to manage.

Specific Content Label

   The Extended Security Option (ESO) can be used to add additional
   content information. An ESO consists of a option code, 0x85, followed
   by a one octet length field, followed by a one octet 'source' ID, and
   lastly a bit field consisting of a variable number of octets, shown
   below as simply additional security information. More than one ESO



Doty & Molitor           Expires February 1997                  [Page 3]


Internet-Drafts        Content Labeling with IPSO            August 1996


   may be present in an IP header.

             +------------+------------+------------+-------//---------+
             |  10000101  |  000LLLLL  |  AAAAAAAA  |  add sec info    |
             +------------+------------+------------+-------//---------+
              TYPE = 133      LENGTH      SOURCE ID    ADDITIONAL INFO

                   Figure 3. Extended Security Option

   Widely available implementations of ESO processing software (DNSIX,
   see [3]) check ESOs found in datagrams arriving on an interface
   against a table of source IDs configured for that interface. The IDs
   found in the table identify whether to interpret ESOs with the
   indicated IDs as Network Layer ESOs (NLESOs), or Auxiliary ESOs
   (AESOs). This table of ESO source IDs and associated data is called
   an accreditation table, in the DNSIX documentation.

   Every ESO found in a datagram must have a source ID found in the
   interface's table. For AESOs, this is sufficient, and the bit field
   present in the datagram option is ignored. For NLESOs, the
   interface's table has a pair of bit fields defined for each NLESO in
   the table, the so called maximum sensitivity and minimum sensitivity.
   In order for an NLESO present in the datagram to be valid, all bits
   set to 1 in the minimum sensitivity must be set to 1 in the datagram,
   and no bits which are not 1 in the maximum may be set to 1 in the
   datagram. Any DNSIX implementation must support bit fields up to 128
   bits wide, so there is quite a lot of room for new content types.

   We propose that the NLESO could be used to provide finer grained
   information about content potentially present in the datagram
   payload. In particular, the positions in the bit field may be used to
   represent various types of contents, and the source ID to represent
   the rating authority. Proposed assignments for source ID are limited
   to the content provider, whoever sent the datagram initially, and a
   general local authority, typically a rating authority located on the
   datagram recipient's network providing rating service directly to the
   recipient. This leaves a large set of other authorities.

       Rating Authority           Source ID
       ----------------           ---------
       Content Provider             0x01
       Local Authority              0x02

               Figure 4. Specific Definitions for Source IDs

   For the two rating authorities defined above, the following bit
   values are defined, borrowing from the cable television industry in
   the USA:



Doty & Molitor           Expires February 1997                  [Page 4]


Internet-Drafts        Content Labeling with IPSO            August 1996


       Content Type                Bit Value
       ------------                ---------
       Language                    0x80
       Violence                    0x40
       Nudity                      0x20
       Adult Themes                0x01

           Figure 5. Specific Definitions for Content Type Bits

   Note that the intended semantics of an NLESO here are 'In the opinion
   of the rating authority indicated by the source ID, the payload of
   this packet may contain material of the indicated types which may be
   offensive to some.'

   It is worth noting here that the BSO, as re-interpreted above, may
   well provide all the necessary information for a given recipient of
   datagrams.

Examples

   A packet rated simply as PG-13, by the originator of the packet,
   would have a BSO of the form:

      0x82 0x04 0x7a 0x00

   A packet rated as R by the content provider, with additional
   information added by a local rating device indicating the possible
   presence of objectionable violent content would have a BSO:

      0x82 0x04 0xad 0x00

   and an NLESO of the form:

      0x85 0x05 0x02 0x40 0x00
   An end customer, wishing to restrict access to the most objectionable
   material would configure their attachment point to the network to be
   a multi-level interface accepting datagrams marked Unclassified (G,
   in the interpretation of this document) through Secret (R, in the
   interpretation of this document), but not Top Secret (NC-17, herein).
   In addition, the relevant interface would be configured to implicitly
   label unlabeled datagrams as, perhaps, Unclassified. Thus, only
   datagrams explicitly labeled as NC-17 would be rejected.

   If a customer wished to accept G through R content, but wished in
   addition to reject packets which might contain, say, violent content,
   the following accreditation table on the attachment interface could
   be used.




Doty & Molitor           Expires February 1997                  [Page 5]


Internet-Drafts        Content Labeling with IPSO            August 1996


       Source ID       ESO Type     Min         Max
       ---------       --------     ---         ---
       0x01            NLESO        0x00         0x40
       0x02            NLESO        0x00         0x40

               Figure 6. Sample Accreditation Table
   Oddly enough, by specifying non-zero fields in the Min column, a
   customer could insist that any ESO-encoded rating must rate the
   content as having certain objectionable content. No packets without
   objectionable language, please. This last point truly illustrates
   that this is a labeling mechanism, not a device for censorship.

Interoperability and Deployment

   Since IP options which are not understood by a host are ignored, this
   system of ratings is quite transparent to those not taking part in
   it.

   Deployment must, by necessity of the culture of the Internet, be
   entirely voluntary.  There are widely deployed DNSIX implementations
   available in network routers (several router vendors provide the
   capability, it is probably fair to say that the majority of deployed
   routers have at least limited DNSIX capability built in, but not
   enabled by the customer) and DNSIX implementations available for
   network hosts (Compartmented Mode Workstations offer the possibility
   of true mixed-content archive servers).  Rating by providers would
   therefore typically be a matter of configuration of existing or
   widely available equipment.  All that is required is the desire to
   provide rating information, and an agreed upon set of definitions. We
   hope that this document can serve for the latter.

Security Considerations

   This memo raises no security issues, though it does re-use the IP
   Security Options.

References

   [1]  Kent, S. "U.S. Department of Defense Security Options for the
        Internet Protocol", RFC 1108, November 1991.

   [2]  St. Johns, M.  "Draft revised IP security option", RFC 1038,
        January 1988.

   [3]  Defense Intelligence Agency, "DNSIX Detailed Design Specification
        Version 2.1", DDS-2600-5985-91, October 1991.





Doty & Molitor           Expires February 1997                  [Page 6]


Internet-Drafts        Content Labeling with IPSO            August 1996


Authors' Addresses

   Andrew Molitor
   Network Systems Corp. MS 718
   7625 Boone Ave. N
   Brooklyn Park, MN, 55428

   Ted Doty
   Network Systems Corp.
   7600 Boone Ave. N
   Brooklyn Park, MN, 55428








































Doty & Molitor           Expires February 1997                  [Page 7]