diem

IETF 125 Session Minutes

Summary

The DIEM working group met to discuss the incoming liaison from ITU-T Study Group 17, progress on the Use Cases and Requirements document, and initial architectural considerations for Digital Emblems. A significant portion of the meeting focused on the relationship between IETF's technical work and ITU-T's policy-oriented work, as well as reaching a consensus on how to handle underspecified use cases to advance the requirements draft toward Working Group Last Call (WGLC).

Key Discussion Points

Liaison Statement from ITU-T Study Group 17

Presentation: Chair's Slides
The WG received a liaison from ITU-T SG17 regarding two work items: X.str.dm (Digital International Humanitarian Law Emblems) and X.str.dm-assets (Digital Emblems for OT assets).
Jim Reid expressed concern about potential duplication of work and suggested that ITU-T focus on policy and government engagement while IETF handles technical specifications.
Arnow Taddei (SG17 Chair) clarified that the ITU-T items are currently non-normative technical reports intended to assist with terminology, UN resolution alignment, and member state awareness. He emphasized a desire for exemplary collaboration between the two SDOs.
Mallory Knodel suggested that the liaison response should invite ITU-T member states into the IETF process to ensure their unique requirements are captured.

Use Cases and Requirements

Presentation: Towards a Use Cases and Requirements Document WGLC
Felix (Editor of draft-ietf-diem-requirements) provided a status update on the draft. He raised a process concern regarding the use of GitHub vs. the mailing list, noting that some participants find GitHub a barrier to entry.
Underspecified Use Cases: A discussion ensued regarding whether the document can proceed to WGLC if some use cases are not fully detailed. Tommy Pauly argued for an "80/20" approach, stating that as long as the requirements are sufficiently broad and permissive to cover future needs, the document does not need to be an exhaustive list of every possible use case.
Consensus Poll: A show of hands was taken on whether it is acceptable to have underspecified use cases in the document.
- Result: 21 Yes, 0 No, 5 No Opinion. The sense of the room was to move forward with the requirements even if some use cases are not fully fleshed out.

Forensic Tracing and Security Requirements

Presentation: Forensic tracing requirement slides
Rahel discussed the need for proof of presence/absence and forensic tracking to prevent replay attacks and provide deterrents against misuse of emblems.
Felix and Jim Reid noted a potential conflict between "detectability" (for monitoring) and "undetectability" (a core military requirement for certain IHL use cases).
Mallory Knodel raised the issue of "selective disclosure" or "split views" (giving different answers based on the validator's identity), suggesting this needs more analysis regarding its impact on protection-based use cases.

Architecture Considerations

Presentation: Architecture ID slides
Jim Reid outlined several open technical questions for a DNS-based architecture:
- Discovery: How to find the correct domain (e.g., using dm.arpa or purpose-specific domains).
- Resource Record (RR) Type: The need to define a new DIEM-specific RR type.
- Security: Leveraging DNSSEC, DoH, or Oblivious DNS for integrity and anonymity.
Thomas McCarthy-Howe inquired about using SCITT for transparency and lifecycle management.
Orie Steele (Area Director) reminded the group that the current charter focuses specifically on DNS-based solutions and instructed the WG to stay within those bounds for the initial work.

Decisions and Action Items

Decision: The WG will move forward with draft-ietf-diem-requirements including underspecified use cases, provided the core requirements are stable.
Action Item: Jim Reid to draft points for a liaison response to ITU-T SG17.
Action Item: Arnow Taddei to review the current requirements draft and provide feedback on potential missing use cases (specifically regarding OT assets) by the end of the week.
Action Item: Rahel to provide concrete text for forensic requirements linked to specific use cases to resolve ambiguity.
Action Item: Tommy Pauly volunteered to co-author the architecture document with Jim Reid.

Next Steps

Editors to update draft-ietf-diem-requirements based on the meeting's consensus.
The architecture team (Jim Reid, Tommy Pauly, Alex Rosenberg) will collaborate on a 01 version of the architecture draft for potential WG adoption.
Chairs to facilitate the translation of GitHub issues to the mailing list to ensure inclusive discussion.

Automatic IETF Minutes