I think it should be generalized further so not be specific to either ESS or ICISM. ESS has very little adoption in the real world while ICISM and its variants are the dominant security label scheme used today.
BTW, Example 2 <displaymarking> should be "U//FOUO" or "UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY" not "SECRET" because of the disseminationControls attribute of SECRET can¹t have FOUO. Also its probably safer to require that colors be specified in their #RRGGBB hexadecimal equivalent not the symbolic name. I think displayMarking should have two attribute portionMarking (i.e. ³S//REL USA and GBR²) and securityBanner (i.e. ²SECRET//REL USA and GBR²). securityBanner The long string representation of the security marking portionMarking The short string representation of the security marking we define a <feature> for MUC that specific to security markings, perhaps "http://www.xmpp.org/protocol/securitylabel"; <presence> and <iq> packets should be labeled be required to be label is message packets are. In many environments a person presence could be very sensitive. if you DISCO a room for the above feature it needs to return: 1. XML namespace of the security labeling scheme used 2. labeling attributes/element used 3. an ordered list of security labels. in the ordered list only highest and lowest have meaning. since a label like ³S//REL USA and FRA² and ³S//REL USA and GBR² are non-comparable. for example based on some work we have done: <x xmlns="jabber:x:data" type="result"> <field var="FORM_TYPE" type="hidden"> <value>http://www.xmpp.org/securitylabel</value> </field> <reported> <field var="classification"> <field var="ownerProducer"> <field var="disseminationControls"> <field var="releasableTo"> ... <field var="x-securityBanner"> <field var="x-portionMarking"> <field var="x-label_bg_color"> <field var="x-label_fg_color"> </reported> <!-- items are ordered from highest classification to lowest --> <item> <field var="classification"> <value>S</value> </field> <field var="ownerProducer"> <value>USA</value> </field> <field var="disseminationControls"> <value>REL</value> </field> <field var="releasableTo"> <value>USA GBR</value> </field> <field var="declassDate"> <value/> <!-- null value for attribute --> </field> <field var="securityBanner"> <value>SECRET//USA//REL TO USA and GBR</value> </field> <field var="portionMarking"> <value>S</value> </field> <field var="bg_color"> <value>#FF0000</value> </field> <field var="fg_color"> <value>#FFFFFF</value> </field> </item> <item> <field var="classification"> <value>U</value> </field> <field var="ownerProducer"> <value>USA</value> </field> <field var="disseminationControls"> <value>FOUO</value> </field> <field var="securityBanner"> <value>UNCLASSIFIED//USA//FOUO</value> </field> <field var="portionMarking"> <value>U</value> </field> <field var="bg_color"> <value>#006400</value> </field> <field var="fg_color"> <value>#FFFFFF</value> </field> </item> </x> On 3/10/09 6:03 PM, "XMPP Extensions Editor" <[email protected]> wrote: > Version 0.2 of XEP-0258 (Security Labels in XMPP) has been released. > > Abstract: This document describes the use of security labels in XMPP. The > document > specifies how security label metadata is carried in XMPP, when this > metadata > should or should not be provided, and how the metadata is to be processed. > > Changelog: Reworked discovery and various updates. (kdz) > > Diff: > http://svn.xmpp.org:18080/browse/XMPP/trunk/extensions/xep-0258.xml?%40diffMod > e=u&%40diffWrap=s&r1=2598&r2=2867&u=3&ignore=&k= > > URL: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0258.html >
