]>

linkerfelix@gmail.com

Applications and Real-Time Digital Emblems next generation unicorn sparkling distributed ledger The Digital Emblems (DIEM) working group (WG) will define an architecture and discovery mechanism to present and validate digital emblems. This document lists use cases for the current and future scope of the DIEM WG and their associated requirements. About This Document The latest revision of this draft can be found at . Status information for this document may be found at . Discussion of this document takes place on the Digital Emblems Working Group mailing list (), which is archived at . Subscribe at . Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at .

Introduction The Digital Emblems (DIEM) working group (WG) will define an architecture and discovery mechanism to present and validate digital emblems. Digital emblems extend the range of existing, identifying marks (for examples, see the use cases below) from the physical (visual and tactile) to the digital realm. This document lists use cases for the current and future scope of the DIEM WG and their associated requirements. As of writing, the DIEM has an initial scope that limits WG work to digital emblems that can be discovered using the DNS and that identify their bearer by a Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN). The WG intends to address use cases presented in within the WG's initial scope, and presents use cases in for future WG work and reference.

Conventions and Definitions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Use Cases and Requirements for Initial Scope Below listed use cases are intended to be addressed within the DIEM WG's initial scope (as chartered as of writing). Every use case lists its associated requirements, which are specified in .

Digital Emblems under International Humanitarian Law The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols constitute the core of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and establish legal rules on the conduct of armed conflict. Some assets enjoy certain specific protections under IHL, including that they must not be attacked, and IHL codifies four types of protective emblems for armed conflict, which inform other parties that marked assets benefit from one or several of these specific protections. Note that assets enjoy there protections irrespective of whether they are marked with the respective emblem. The emblem only serves to inform others of these protections.

• The emblems of the Red Cross, Red Crescent, and Red Crystal are applied to assets of the medical services as well as the assets of certain humanitarian operations.
• The Blue Shield emblem is applied to cultural property.
• The emblem for the protection of civil defense is applied to certain assets for the protection of the civilian population against the dangers of hostilities or disasters.
• The dangerous forces emblem is applied to works or installations containing dangerous forces, i.e., dams, dikes, and nuclear generating facilities.

Digital emblems under IHL will be borne by network-connected and network-addressable assets that enjoy aforementioned specific protections under IHL and whose disruption would violate these protections.

Requirements Digital emblems under IHL MUST identify the issuing party and MUST provide a means for authorization by third parties. Additionally, this use case has the following requirements:

• Authenticity
• Authorization and Decentralized Authorization
• Accountability
• Revocation
• Undetectable Validation

Marking of the Press TODO

The Ramsar Convention TODO

Other Use Cases and Requirements The initial DIEM efforts do not include the following use cases. They are listed here for documentation and future reference. The requirements of these use cases are not complete and would need to be investigated further when addressing the use cases.

Marking of Hazardous Materials The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the Basel Convention require that certain, dangerous materials are marked during shipment. Concretely:

• The OPCW requires marking of Schedule 1 chemicals.
• The IAEA administers several treaties related to the shipment of atomic fuels and wasters across borders.
• The Basel Convention regulates the trans-boundary movement of hazardous wastes.

An emblem MUST provide a description, location, date, and quantity. The description MUST be accessible only by authorized parties, e.g., customs agencies or material handlers.

Marking of Brand-Associated Shipments World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) administers treaties, in particular the Madrid Protocol, that allow brands to mark their shipments with an emblem so that customs agents can identify legitimate products. An emblem MUST identify the copyright/brand image, provide a textual description of the shipment, and a chain-of-custody/provenance.

Marking of Civil Aviation Flights The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) requires that civil aviation flights are protected and that one can verify them to not be dual-use, e.g., not carrying military cargo. An emblem MUST carry a geographic description of the flight plan, its current location, and a textual description of the flight including its manifest, identifying characteristics, e.g., tail number. An emblem may need to also reference a flight manifest.

Requirements

Authenticity Validators MUST be able to verify that an emblem was issued for the respective bearer, issued by the claimed issuer (where applicable), and that none of its associated data was changed.

Authorization Validators MUST be able to verify that an emblem issuer was authorized to issue the emblem. Authorizing parties MAY limit what emblems an issuer can issue, e.g., they MAY limit issuance to certain bearers.

Decentralized Authorization Anyone MUST be able to authorize an issuer.

Accountability Emblem issuance and authorization of issuers (where applicable) MUST be attributable to issuers and authorizing parties. Authorizing parties and emblem issuers MUST NOT be able to repudiate that they issued an emblem or authorization.

Revocation Emblems and authorizations (where applicable) MUST be revokable within reasonable windows of time. Depending on the design, it may suffice to rely on expiration of short-lived emblems and authorization effectively as a revocation mechanism.

Undetectable Validation Bearers MUST NOT be able to detect whether someone is requesting or validating emblems issued for them.

Visual An emblem MUST be capable of carrying a visual representation of the physical emblem it represents.

Law Carrying An emblem MUST carry an unambiguous indication of the international law or laws conferring the semantics of the emblem.

Proximity-Based Distribution An emblem MUST be presentable using an in-band, proximity-based protocol such as a QR code or RFID.

Physical Binding An emblem MUST be possible to associate with physical assets, e.g., buildings, vehicles, or containers.

Quantifiable An emblem MUST be possible to associate with a range or specific quantity of associated, physical assets.

Geographic An emblem MUST be restrictable by geographic scope.

Identity Binding An emblem MUST be possible to associate with a person or group of people.

Human-Readable Validation Data An emblem MUST be capable of providing additional relevant information (e.g., photographs, unique identifiers) which can be used to corroborate the association of the digital emblem with the entity bearing it.

Security Considerations TODO Security

IANA Considerations This document has no IANA actions.

Contributors Parts of this document are based on and . As part of that, Brian Haberman (brian@innovationslab.net), Tommy Jensen (tojens@microsoft.com), and Bill Woodcock (woody@pch.net) contributed to writing this document. Furhermore, Rohan Mahy (rohan.ietf@gmail.com) provided valuable feedback on contents and structure, and Samit D'Cunha (sdcunha@icrc.org) provided feedback on the IHL aspects of this document.

References Normative References In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. Informative References JHU/APL Microsoft PCH International law defines a number of emblems, such as the blue helmets of United Nations peacekeeping forces, the blue and white shield of UNESCO, and the Red Cross of the International Committee of the Red Cross, as indicative of special protections under the Geneva Conventions. Similar protections attach to journalists who wear "Press" protective emblems on the battlefield, under Article 79 of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions and Resolution 2222 of the United Nations Security Council. The emblems of national governments and inter-governmental organizations protect diplomatic pouches, couriers, and envoys under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Other marks enjoy protections against mis-use under the Paris Convention, the Madrid Protocol, and the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Such physical emblems have a number of weaknesses and do not translate to the digital realm. This document provides a summary of the problems and documents identified requirements from a number of stakeholders for a digital emblem which addresses the shortcomings of the physical emblems and makes possible the indication of protections of digital assets under international law. ETH Zurich ICRC Microsoft In times of armed conflict, the protective emblems of the red cross, red crescent, and red crystal are used to mark _physical_ assets. This enables military units to identify assets as respected and protected under international humanitarian law. This draft explores how one could apply the protective emblems to _digital_, network- connected infrastructure using a _digital emblem_, and defines the requirements of a digital emblem, emphasizing security requirements. Notably, a digital emblem has a unique combination of security requirements, namely, authentication, accountability, and a property that we call _covert inspection_. Covert inspection means that those wishing to authenticate assets as protected must be able to do so without revealing that they may attack unprotected entities.

Acknowledgments TODO acknowledge.