**Session Date/Time:** 05 Nov 2024 09:30

```markdown
# diem

## Summary

This was the second BoF (Birds of a Feather) session on Digital Emblems. The primary goal was to refine the scope of work for a potential IETF working group. The discussion focused on defining "digital emblem," identifying common requirements across various use cases, and addressing the interplay between digital and physical assets. The session involved a deep dive into the draft charter text, exploring different approaches for scoping the work, and gauging community sentiment.  Ultimately, consensus on a path forward was not achieved, and further work on the mailing list was determined to be necessary.

## Key Discussion Points

*   **Defining "Digital Emblem":**  Considerable debate centered on the definition of a "digital emblem," with several definitions presented. Key questions included whether legal protection or treatment is inherent to the definition and whether the digital nature of the *asset* or of the *interaction* is the defining characteristic.
*   **Overlapping with Existing IETF Work:** Concerns were raised about potential overlap with existing IETF working groups, such as SPICE, and the need to leverage existing building blocks rather than creating entirely new solutions.
*   **Legal Frameworks:**  The importance of legal and normative frameworks was discussed, particularly in the context of international humanitarian law. The question of whether digital emblems *must* be tied to legal protections or could represent broader normative frameworks was a point of contention.
*   **Physical vs. Digital Assets:** A significant divide emerged regarding whether the working group should focus solely on digital assets or include physical assets as well.  Arguments were presented for both approaches, with some suggesting that the means of interaction (digital) was more relevant than the nature of the asset.
*   **Use Cases:** Several use cases were discussed including those for press protection, ICRC emblems, customs and maritime security. 
*   **Charter Scope (Narrow vs. Broad):**  A core disagreement arose regarding the scope of the potential working group's charter. Some advocated for a narrow charter focused on a specific use case (e.g., international humanitarian law) to ensure success, while others favored a broader charter that allows for wider applicability and potential expansion. There were further discussion regarding whether to do the requirements or use cases first. 
*   **Abuse Potential:** The risk of abuse with a overly broad definition was also discussed.

## Decisions and Action Items

*   **No formal decisions were made.** The group did not reach consensus on the scope of the working group or the definition of "digital emblem".

## Next Steps

*   Continue refining the charter text on the mailing list.
*   Explore potential changes to the shape of the charter to address the concerns raised in the meeting.
*   Revisit the question of whether to adopt a narrow or broad scope for the working group, considering the trade-offs between feasibility and general applicability.
*   Explore possibility of a 3rd BoF Session
*   Attempt to create two working groups