| Internet-Draft | Digital Emblem Models | November 2024 |
| Woodcock, et al. | Expires 25 May 2025 | [Page] |
This document describes the conceptual models of use for digital emblems.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 May 2025.¶
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
Digital emblems are intended to be modern counterparts to the visual markings which have historically been used to comply with marking requirements found in international law. Digital emblems provide mechanisms for authentication, access control, dynamic data and bidirectional data flows, revocation, non-repudiatability, and the inclusion of external data, rich media, and many other benefits which are difficult or impossible to convey with a rattle-can and a stencil.¶
Although there are many different marks, applied by many different parties, for many different purposes, the task of marking, per se, is simply one of conveying information between parties. As long as a protocol is capable of conveying any information parties agree to use it for, it succeeds. If it is too prescriptive, or tries too hard to anticipate and circumscribe uses, it fails.¶
Many use-cases for digital counterparts to physical markings have been documented [I-D.haberman-digital-emblem-ps]. This document distills the common technological requirements of those use-cases into a single harmonized set of requirements; the superset of requirements which are common to multiple intergovernmental organizations and multiple bodies of international law. From this set of common requirements is derived a conceptual models of digital emblems.¶
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 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
Asset: A person, place, or thing that is designated by a state or other recognized entity as having certain legal protections.¶
Digital Emblem. A digital embodiment of the protections granted for an asset, consisting of attributes that definitively describe the asset using electronic means. These attributes collectively associate the emblem to the asset based on legal or similar normative framework and inform recipients of the emblem as to how they should treat the asset.¶
Authenticity: A characteristic that demonstrates a) the positive association between a digital emblem to the asset that it describes, using its attributes and b) that the digital emblem itself is the original and has not been tampered with.¶
Authorization: The act of granting legitimacy to the creation of a digital emblem for an asset, either directly by an entity that is officially recognized to do so, or indirectly, by an entity that has been recognized by an already-recognized entity.¶
Validation: The act of verifying both the authenticity and authorization of a digital emblem using one or more ultimately trusted sources as the root(s) for authenticity and/or authorization.¶
Discovery: The process of definitely determining whether a digital emblem exists for a given asset, or learning digital emblems and their corresponding assets.¶
Issuer: The entity that has created a digital emblem.¶
Validator: An entity performing validation of a digital emblem.¶
The issuer of a digital emblem is the entity that wants to communicate to third parties that the associated asset has certain legal protections. It does this by creating the digital emblem, digitally signing it in such a way that it can be validated for both authorization and authenticity, and making it discoverable via a distribution mechanism.¶
The validator is the ultimate consumer of a digital emblem; it is an entity wanting to inquire as to whether a given asset has legal protections. This entity needs some way to discover the digital emblem associated with the asset in question and to validate it.¶
Figure 1 illustrates these roles.¶
+--------+
| Issuer |
+----+---+
|
Signature |<------------------+
| |
+----+----+ | +-----------+
| Digital | Validation +-| Validator |
| Emblem | | +-----------+
+----+----+ |
| |
Attributes |<------------------+
|
+---+---+
| Asset |
+-------+
A distribution mechanism is used by the issuer to make a digital emblem for an asset discoverable to a validator. It is referenced by an unambiguous identifier appropriate for that mechanism. Example identifiers include a domain name or a Uniform Resource Locator (URL). The distribution mechanism may be access-controlled, and it may require that validators authenticate themselves in order to gain access to an emblem. A physical representation of a digital emblem may be used by the issuer to direct validators to the digital emblem by displaying or to to communicate the digital emblem itself. Thus, a physical representation may be either a non-unique embodiment of the emblem, or it may be a signpost directing validators to a digital emblem via a separate distribution mechanism.¶
A digital emblem consists of attributes that unambiguously describe the asset with which it is associated, as well as the considerations it is to be given, including legal and other protections. These take the form of a bundle of related records appropriate for the distribution mechanism employed, and discoverable at the specified identifier. The attributes comprising the records bind the record to the asset. They convey information regarding the asset and its handling which may not be presently anticipated by current implementors. Figure 2 illustrates the record bundles for issuers and assets. Figure 3 shows the channels used to convey the information to a validator.¶
+------------------------+ +----------------------------+
| Issuer | | Asset |
+------------------------+ +----------------------------+
+===| Visual representation |======| Temporal scope of validity |===+
|| | Identification of law | | Spatial scope of validity | ||
|| | Contact information | | SI unit of size or weight | ||
|| | Handling flags | | WCO standard quantity | ||
|| | Issuer's signature | | ISO 4217 unit of currency | ||
|| | Third-party signatures | | Names and serial numbers | ||
|| +------------------------+ | Distinguishing marks | ||
|| | External references | ||
|| +----------------------------+ ||
|| ||
|| Standardized digital emblem data elements ||
|| ||
+====================================================================+
--- Data at rest ----------------->
+--------+ --- Data in flight --------------->
| Issuer | --- In-band network response ----->
+--------+ --- Passive RF transponder ------->
--- Active RF transponder --------> +-----------+
--- Active RF beacon -------------> | Validator |
--- Passive optical marking ------> +-----------+
+-------+ --- Active optical transponder --->
| Asset | --- Active optical beacon -------->
+-------+ --- Active audio transponder ----->
--- Active audio beacon ---------->
Digital emblem data bundles may be presented as part of an interactive session between issuer and validator, as for instance in the case that the validator MUST be authenticated in real time, or may receive variable information. Digital emblem data bundles may also be presented as static data or unidirectional data flows, which may facilitate offline validation. Digital emblems should be agnostic as to the mode by which they are communicated to validators, but implementors may wish to consider methods which encompass both interactive and offline validation, transmission of the whole digital emblem data bundles or redirective links to them, and should prefer, wherever possible, to implement digital emblems above already-standardized lower-level transmission protocols, without requiring exceptions or revisions to those protocols to accommodate digital emblem payloads. A number of the anticipated possible distribution mechanisms are noted in the diagram above.¶
It MUST be possible to bind a digital emblem to a person, place, thing, digital data at rest, digital data in transit, or an online service (collectively referred to as assets).¶
Putting aside any legal or regulatory restrictions, any entity MAY issue a digital emblem under their own authority and imprimatur without the approval or participation of any other party.¶
Non-goal: The binding of assets and emblems will always be fraught, and markings of any kind MAY be replicated outside the control or intention of a their original author. No protocol can limit the actions of people in the physical world, and thus this protocol focuses on improving the communication channel which allows validators to determine the authenticity of the original emblem (not of a physical representation of the emblem) and the information needed to determine the authenticity of the binding.¶
A digital emblem consists of a set of one or more data elements united by a common label.¶
It SHOULD be possible for a single uniquely-named digital emblem to incorporate data elements which are also used in other digital emblems issued by the same issuer, or other digital emblems issued by other issuers.¶
It SHOULD be possible to organize digital emblems in a hierarchical namespace, in which each node of the namespace MAY contain a bundle of records representing a single digital emblem.¶
It MUST be possible for parties controlling portions of the hierarchical namespace to receive delegations of that space from others above them in the hierarchy, and to perform delegations to others who are then by definition below them in the hierarchy.¶
Any hierarchy of cryptographic signatures used to authenticate digital emblems SHOULD be one and the same as the hierarchy of the namespace.¶
Issuers MUST be free to compose digital emblem of the elements which best fit their uses. No element type SHOULD be a required member of the set. <!---¶
A digital emblem MUST be capable of displaying a visual representation of any physical emblem which it supplements or replaces. This MUST be in scalable vector format. The preferred aspect-ratio is between 1:1 and 2:1, but MUST NOT exceed 3:1 or 1:3. The emblem MAY be presented in two versions, one for display against a light background, the other for display against a dark background. The emblem MUST utilize a transparent background, if it is not a contiguous convex rectangle of the same extent as the file. The emblem MAY utilize variable transparency, and implementations which display it MUST support display of variable transparency. The visual representation MUST be entirely self-contained, and may not contain any external references, such as to Internet-hosted webfonts or linked URLs. All current embodiments are anticipated to be static visual images, without animation or sound. While it SHOULD generally be possible to include digital emblem elements from other areas of the digital emblem hierarchy, visual representations MAY only be used within their own cone, or cones linked by an outbound intra-organizational Digital Emblem Peer (DEP) signature. For example, the United Nations logotype might be included as a visual representation within any digital embem in any cone which the UN has signed with an intra-organizational DEP, but may not be used within the cone of CopyCatCo. --->¶
A visual representation SHOULD be included in any digital emblem bundle which the issuer has reason to believe may be viewed by a human. If a visual representation is included it MUST be in scalable vector format.¶
It SHOULD be possible to use a redirection to include-by-reference a bundle of records under a different namespace node, in order to allow for the use of common sets without duplicating them (and keeping them synchronized when updated) to different parts of the hierarchy. If the redirections contain language tags, this MAY also be a way to allow good localization support without cluttering the top level of the digital emblem. It could contain these redirectors, for different language-codes, which would expand into the set of records supporting that language. If someone doesn't speak Turkish, they could ignore all the redirects that were Turkish-language-specific.¶
It SHOULD be possible for an issuer to authenticate potential validators, and respond with different digital emblem data, or no data, depending upon the identity of the validator.¶
It SHOULD be possible for an issuer to specify periods of validity for digital emblems (TTL) and the cryptographic signatures over them, independently of the period of validity of the subject of the digital emblem. For example, it SHOULD be possible to issue a digital emblem which is signed with a key which has a validity period which extends one year into the future and one year in the past, indicating that an asset SHOULD arrive at its destination five days from now, and it SHOULD be possible to mark that digital emblem as cacheable by validators for a period of one day.¶
Issuers SHOULD have the option to make downward delegations within the hierarchical namespace within their control subject to discovery by validators or not subject to discovery, at their option. Upward walking of the hierarchy SHOULD always be available to any validator.¶
It SHOULD be possible for a validator and an issuer to conduct a cryptographically private conversation, such that third parties are not able to easily discern what asset the query regards, nor what answer is returned. <!---¶
Verifier implementations MUST display the visual emblem first, followed by the name of the emblem, followed by a textual description with hyperlinks to the bodies of protective law, followed by the content protected by the emblem. This ordering MAY be temporal, or spatially top-to-bottom, in the direction of text reading, or front-to-back, in order of preference. The emblem is not a license, and implementations MUST NOT require user interaction to proceed through these steps, except as MAY normally be needed to "scroll through" or read content. The emblem SHOULD be distinguished from the content it protects, without requiring any modal interaction on the part of the user. --->¶
Verifier implementations MUST display the visual representation if it is included in the digital emblem bundle.¶
All text within digital emblems SHOULD be rendered in its native script, and common transliterations MAY also be provided, all identified by language tag and script [BCP47]. The native script version SHOULD always take precedence but validators MAY, at the user’s option, display only appropriate transliterations, if they exist.¶
It SHOULD be possible to determine authoritatively whether a digital emblem is associated with an IP address or ASNs by querying relevant portions of the hierarchical namespace.¶
In the event that a digital emblem does not exist at a node in the hierarchical namespace, it SHOULD be possible to prove that due diligence has been exercised, and that a negative answer was received at a specific time.¶
Offline validation SHOULD be possible, provided a sufficient portion of the digital emblem bundle is present, and all necessary parent signatures/delegations are cached by the validator in then-valid form.¶
As DEP signatures SHOULD be asymmetric, it MAY be desirable to also support discovery of outbound DEP signatures performed from a node in the namespace hierarchy. i.e. to be able to discover what other nodes the current node has provided DEP signatures for.¶
If the digital emblem hierarchical namespace exists within another namespace, sharing a root of trust, it MAY be useful to create a registry which allows the publication of tops of digital emblem cones within the larger namespace, to assist verifiers in locating the authentic tops of the digital emblem namespace cones they’re interested in.¶
Until verification tools are widespread, it MAY be useful to have a backwards-compatible mechanism of displaying digital emblem information in a less-secure context, for instance web browsers which are incapable of verifying digital emblem content might still be capable of displaying it, with an indication that it has not been verified.¶
It MUST be possible to cryptographically verify that the content of a digital emblem is complete and has not been modified.¶
It MUST be possible to cryptographically authenticate the issuing party of a Digital Emblem.¶
At any level of the digital emblem namespace hierarchy, it MUST be possible to use a DEP record to contextualize the issuing party of a Digital Emblem in terms of a "web of trust" consisting of other related organizations, other emblem issuers within the same organization, or other authenticated entities which can "vouch for" the legitimacy of the issuing party in a cross-signing web-of-trust, with the nature of the relationship between the namespace node and the signing entity characterized using a small standardized set of relationship types. These SHOULD include the ability to denote one cone of the hierarchy as functionally identical to another (in the event that two cones within the namespace, neither of which is within the other, are functionally identical or under common control and policy; intra-organizational signatures which indicate that two cones are under common control and vouch for each other, but have different function and policy; and inter-organizational signatures which indicate that the other organization vouches for this one, in the sense of being a known and trusted partner, for instance. Inter-organizational DEP relationships can be used to differentiate intended organizations from typosquatting impersonators. Some potential relationships which might be encoded in a DEP record include: Treaty signatory, P&I recognizer, Organizational parent, Organizational peer, Organizational child, License grantor, Visa / entry grantor, Work-permit grantor, Residence-permit grantor, Employment certifier, Overflight right grantor, Permission to enter territorial waters grantor, Know-Your-Customer data verifier.¶
It MUST be possible to specify the formal name of the TREATY or international law referenced by the marking: "1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations” “The Convention on Wetlands” If the treaty or body of law has a commonly-used informal name, that MAY be provided as a second text string. The name SHOULD be provided in the native script of the title of the treaty, and common transliterations MAY also be provided, identified by language tag and script [BCP47].¶
It MUST be possible to indicate the canonical URL of a public copy of the treaty or international law referenced by the marking.¶
It MUST be possible to identify the TREATY ORGANIZATION responsible for administering the relevant body of international law.¶
If a specific PROTECTION is being invoked under international law, it MUST be possible to include a brief description of the legal protection being invoked: "Anti-counterfeiting" "Diplomatic courier" "Endangered species transport" "Fissionable materials transport"¶
It MUST be possible to identify one or more authoritative points of CONTACT of the digital emblem issuer. It SHOULD be possible to include fields such as person or role name, email, phone, and postal address. If multiple CONTACT parties are identified, they SHOULD also be distinguished as to purpose.¶
It SHOULD be possible to bind a digital emblem to an online service by FQDN, IPv4 address, IPv6 address, IP/port combination, URL, ASN, or combinations of those.¶
Binding of digital emblems to assets SHOULD be accomplished by using digital emblem elements to describe the asset, assets, or class of assets to which the digital emblem is bound, using parameters appropriate to the type of asset, the context of communication, and the shared understanding of the issuer and the verifier.¶
Common descriptive elements SHOULD be sufficiently standardized such that they can be displayed by most verification terminals, software, or devices.¶
It MUST be possible for a digital emblem to reference arbitrary externally-hosted media via URLs. References to image URLs (i.e. images which do not contain text) do not need language tags. URLs to, for instance, PDFs of treaty documents, SHOULD contain the language label indicating the language of text included within the PDF document.¶
The framework of descriptive elements SHOULD NOT be so prescriptive as to preclude the communication of arbitrary structured data in formats understood in common by digital emblem issuers and verifiers, but unanticipated by the digital emblem protocol or its authors.¶
It MUST be possible to specify a temporal scope of validity for a Digital Emblem, composed of one or more temporal periods of validity.¶
It MUST be possible to define temporal scopes and periods of validity which are independent of other time periods inherited from other parts of the protocol stack, such as the TTLs or the validity periods of digital signatures used to authenticate the digital emblem.¶
Each temporal period of validity MUST be of non-negative length; that is, for each one, its end time may not precede its start time.¶
Temporal periods of validity MAY be overlapping, and the areas of overlap shall be treated as positive, not negative.¶
It MUST be possible to specify a spatial scope of validity for a Digital Emblem, composed of one or more volumetric regions of validity.¶
Volumetric regions of validity MAY be overlapping, and the areas of overlap shall be treated as positive, not negative.¶
Volumetric regions of validity MUST be convex and not sufficiently complex or unconventional as to startle improvident interpretation code. Principle of least astonishment applies.¶
For reasons of compatibility with other systems, it MUST be possible to denote volumetric regions of validity as either or both of a lat/lon/alt/rad or by locating the vertices of a geometric solid. Both systems MAY be used within the same digital emblem, and geometric solids are presumed to have precedence over lat/lon/alt/rad spheres.¶
It MUST be possible to associate one or more temporal scopes of validity with one or more spatial scopes of validity.¶
It MUST be possible to describe multiple separate and independent sets of temporal/spatial validities within the same digital emblem.¶
When a marked asset is identified as a numbered member of an enumerated set, it SHOULD be possible to convey its individual number as well as the size of the set. i.e. “crate 2 of 5.”¶
It MUST be possible to denote a quantity, currency, weight or measure using customs-recognized standards, in the format of a paired numerical quantity and named unit, followed by an optional numerical precision in the same units. The unit MAY consist of an ISO 4217 currency code, an SI base unit of length or mass ("m" or "kg"), a WCO unit of quantity (m2, m3, l, kWh, u), or one of the following: persons, pouches, vehicles, aircraft, watercraft, spacecraft, ANY. The quantity and precision (each of which MAY be of value 0) MAY possess an optional floating decimal place. Precision should be understood to be +/- the previous value. In conjunction with a Digital Emblem, this could be used, depending on context, to connote a number of vehicles traveling together in convoy, a number of persons in a delegation, a number of diplomatic pouches in a shipment, a quantity or valuation of goods being proffered to customs, an area under protection, etc. Multiple QTY RRs MAY be associated with the same DNS label, but have no defined precedence or order.¶
It MUST be possible to denote a period of validity, by specifying a duration OR a start AND end date OR date and time OR the word ANY. The format of dates, times, and durations must be consistent with [RFC3339]. When start and end date and times are used, start is first, and end is second. A duration MUST stand alone and may not be paired with a date. A date represents the point in time immediately preceding and including the named date, but subsequent to and not including the previous period of the same resolution.¶
It MUST be possible to define the FORM of the instance of the emblem. Is it a physical plaque, a nametag, an RFID transponder, a painted QRcode, a file on digital storage, a badge attached to a shipping crate, text embroidered onto a garment? Ideally this SHOULD be a reference to a common registry.¶
It MUST be possible to indicate the TYPE of asset to which the digital emblem is bound. Is it a building, a diplomatic courier, a web site, and email server, files on a flash thumb drive, the contents of a shipping crate? Ideally this SHOULD be a reference to a common registry.¶
It MUST be possible to NAME the asset to which the digital emblem is bound using a proper noun name of the thing, if it has one, such as "Richard Smith" or "Amiens Cathedral”. Names SHOULD be rendered in their native script, and common transliterations MAY also be provided, identified by language tag and script [BCP47].¶
It MUST be possible to state the unique SERIAL number of the thing being protected, if it has one.¶
It MUST be possible to provide a textual DESCRIPTION of identifying characteristics: "A painting of a standing woman in Elizabethan dress, 92cm wide by 188 cm high, in a gold-leaf wooden frame."¶
It MUST be possible to provide a textual DESCRIPTION of uniquely identifying characteristics: "Initials 'RH' scratched into lower right corner" "Two brown birthmarks of 4mm and 3mm above left eyebrow"¶
It SHOULD be possible to indicate in a simple flag if the digital emblem is problematically no longer known to be physically proximate to the asset it marks (i.e. they may have become separated from each other).¶
It SHOULD be possible to indicate in a simple flag if a physical embodiment of the digital embem is problematically no longer in a known location (i.e. it has been stolen / lost / separated from its asset).¶
It SHOULD be possible to indicate in a simple flag if the asset is problematically no longer in a known location (i.e. it has been stolen / kidnapped / lost).¶
It SHOULD be possible to indicate in a simple flag if the asset has had its legal protections violated. (For instance, a diplomatic pouch has been opened by unauthorized parties.) In a more elaborate form, this could include time and position, if known, and other details about the violation.¶
It SHOULD be possible to indicate if the issuer requests that informational updates regarding the progress or status of the asset be sent to the specified contact.¶
It SHOULD be possible to indicate the preferred treatment of an asset which is outside its spatial or temporal window of certificate validity. (For instance, a diplomatic envoy whose remit is for Argentina from January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2026, but whose digital emblem is scanned in Brazil: should they receive any special status? For instance, a shipment of medical aid which arrives at a customs checkpoint a year late: should it be returned to sender, forwarded onward to its destination, confiscated, destroyed, donated to a good cause?)¶
It SHOULD be possible for properly-authenticated mobile assets, or the physical instantiations of digital emblems affixed to them, to update the location record associated with the digital emblem instance or the asset or both, in real-time or near-real-time, provided a sufficient communications channel back to the issuer exists.¶
Issuers / servers SHOULD attempt to deliver all records associated with a single digital emblem as a bundle or blob or single transaction, rather than requiring validators to make multiple queries or guess what records to ask for within a node of the namespace hierarchy.¶
Issuers / servers MAY wish to include the chain of parent signatures up to the unitary root of trust, within the digital emblem record blob, so as to facilitate offline validation by validators which have only the root signature cached.¶
It SHOULD be possible for issuers to push new and updated digital emblems to relevant verifiers or trusted intermediary caches, when appropriate, with cryptographic authentication of both parties and encrypted transport between them.¶
This document makes no requests of the IANA.¶
Moez Chakchouk arranged and conducted many of the use-case interviews with intergovernmental treaty organizations responsible for bodies of international law.¶