Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Information Classification Extension #785

Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
48 changes: 48 additions & 0 deletions extensions/classification.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
# Information Classification

As part of ISO27001 control objective A8.2 aims to address 'Information
Classification' whereby information and data in an organization is properly
managed, including classification in relation to sensitivity of the data,
legislation etc. A.8.2.2 requires that electronic assets be 'labeled',
and this extension allows the `data` of cloudevents to be appropriately labeled
with the `classification` of the event being shared.

Organizations will typically have their own internal Information Management
policies and standards that might address these control objectives differently,
however this extension provides a consistent framework for labeling
events, where an organization can use their own internal values for
`classification`.

This extension is not opinionated on how this classification will be used and
does not, for example, imply different encryption schemes etc.

For Sainsburys-tech colleagues, additional information can be found on our
internal confluence under `/display/IC/Information+Classification+Extension`,
which, for example, includes the values from our own classification policies.

## Attributes

### classification

- Type: `String`
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It might be useful to allow multiple values

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Interesting, I'm not sure the underlying standard supports multiple labels. It's normally a hierarchy and you would therefore label with the most sensitive label. This might be worth validating with someone who knows the underlying spec better.

- Description: The `classification` of the `data`. The value SHOULD be expressed
in uppercase.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why put a constraint on the uppercase part, I think the classification labels should be open?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wasn't sure here, I figured it was better to assume case-insensitivity as "public" and "PUBLIC" for example should be treated equally to avoid potential confusions. It's also common practice in a few organizations I've been in to use uppercase on documents as it makes it clear the word is used as a 'keyword, in relation to policy'. Perhaps we could define the values should be treated case-insensitive, but allow the value set either way? I was leaning to force upper as it makes it explicit, and the 'SHOULD' allows flexibility if for some reason it were problematic.

- Constraints:
- REQUIRED
- MUST be a non-empty string (TBD)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what's the TBD for?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess I wanted a second opinion on this. My starting point would be to not allow an empty string, unless it had a specific purpose. You could for example theoretically have a component that implements the extension, but didn't know how to classify the data after inspection. In such a state you could use "" or maybe an explicit "Unknown".
I think the better implementation is that the field be omitted which maintains the data is 'unclassified' and therefore I'd suggest "MUST be a non-empty string"


# Examples

The following example shows a CloudEvent the producer has labeled as PUBLIC:

```JSON
{
"specversion" : "1.0",
"type" : "com.github.pull_request.opened",
"source" : "https://github.com/cloudevents/spec/pull/123",
"id" : "A234-1234-1234",
"datacontenttype" : "text/xml",
"classification" : "PUBLIC",
"data" : "<much wow=\"xml\"/>",
}
```