



Digital Emblems                                                F. Linker
Internet-Draft                                              30 June 2025
Intended status: Informational                                          
Expires: 1 January 2026


                    DIEM Use Cases and Requirements
                   draft-linker-diem-requirements-00

Abstract

   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

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   The latest revision of this draft can be found at
   https://felixlinker.github.io/diem-requirements/draft-linker-diem-
   requirements.html.  Status information for this document may be found
   at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-linker-diem-requirements/.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the Digital Emblems
   Working Group mailing list (mailto:diem@ietf.org), which is archived
   at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/diem.  Subscribe at
   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diem/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/felixlinker/diem-requirements.

Status of This Memo

   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."




Linker                   Expires 1 January 2026                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       DIEM Use Cases and Requirements           June 2025


   This Internet-Draft will expire on 1 January 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Use Cases and Requirements for Initial Scope  . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Digital Emblems under International Humanitarian Law  . .   3
       3.1.1.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Marking of the Press  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  The Ramsar Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Other Use Cases and Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Marking of Hazardous Materials  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Marking of Brand-Associated Shipments . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  Marking of Civil Aviation Flights . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Authenticity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       5.2.1.  Decentralized Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.3.  Accountability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.4.  Revocation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.5.  Undetectable Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.6.  Visual  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.7.  Law Carrying  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.8.  Proximity-Based Distribution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.9.  Physical Binding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       5.9.1.  Quantifiable  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       5.9.2.  Geographic  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.10. Identity Binding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.11. Human-Readable Validation Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8



Linker                   Expires 1 January 2026                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       DIEM Use Cases and Requirements           June 2025


     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  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
   Section 3 within the WG's initial scope, and presents use cases in
   Section 4 for future WG work and reference.

2.  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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  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 Section 5.

3.1.  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.





Linker                   Expires 1 January 2026                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       DIEM Use Cases and Requirements           June 2025


   *  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.

3.1.1.  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

3.2.  Marking of the Press

   TODO

3.3.  The Ramsar Convention

   TODO









Linker                   Expires 1 January 2026                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft       DIEM Use Cases and Requirements           June 2025


4.  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.

4.1.  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.

4.2.  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.

4.3.  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.





Linker                   Expires 1 January 2026                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft       DIEM Use Cases and Requirements           June 2025


5.  Requirements

5.1.  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.

5.2.  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.

5.2.1.  Decentralized Authorization

   Anyone MUST be able to authorize an issuer.

5.3.  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.

5.4.  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.

5.5.  Undetectable Validation

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

5.6.  Visual

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

5.7.  Law Carrying

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




Linker                   Expires 1 January 2026                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft       DIEM Use Cases and Requirements           June 2025


5.8.  Proximity-Based Distribution

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

5.9.  Physical Binding

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

5.9.1.  Quantifiable

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

5.9.2.  Geographic

   An emblem MUST be restrictable by geographic scope.

5.10.  Identity Binding

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

5.11.  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.

6.  Security Considerations

   TODO Security

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

8.  Contributors

   Parts of this document are based on
   [I-D.draft-haberman-digital-emblem-ps-03] and
   [I-D.draft-linker-digital-emblem-02].  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



Linker                   Expires 1 January 2026                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft       DIEM Use Cases and Requirements           June 2025


   structure, and Samit D'Cunha (sdcunha@icrc.org) provided feedback on
   the IHL aspects of this document.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.draft-haberman-digital-emblem-ps-03]
              Haberman, B., Jensen, T., and B. Woodcock, "Problem
              Statement for Digitized Emblems", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-haberman-digital-emblem-ps-03, 18
              November 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-haberman-digital-emblem-ps-03>.

   [I-D.draft-linker-digital-emblem-02]
              Linker, F., Vignati, M., and T. Jensen, "Problem Statement
              for a Digital Emblem", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-linker-digital-emblem-02, 28 June 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-linker-
              digital-emblem-02>.

Acknowledgments

   TODO acknowledge.

Author's Address

   Felix Linker
   Email: linkerfelix@gmail.com











Linker                   Expires 1 January 2026                 [Page 8]
