Embargo Management Behavior Tree

The Embargo Management Behavior Tree is shown in the figure below. It follows the state transition function in the Embargo Management Process Model. Recall that the EM process begins in the \(q^{em} \in N\) state and ends in one of two states:

• in the eXited (\(q^{em} \in X\)) state after having established an Active embargo, or
• in the None (\(q^{em} \in N\)) state after having exhausted all attempts to reach an agreement

---
title: Embargo Management Behavior Tree
---
flowchart LR
    fb[?]
    rm_s_or_c(["RM S or C?"])
    fb -->|A| rm_s_or_c
    em_x(["EM X?"])
    fb -->|B| em_x
    seq1["→"]
    fb -->|C| seq1
    cs_not_pxa(["CS not in pxa?"])
    seq1 --> cs_not_pxa
    em_none(["EM N?"])
    seq1 --> em_none
    n_seq["→"]
    fb -->|D| n_seq
    n_em_none(["EM N?"])
    n_seq --> n_em_none
    n_fb[?]
    n_seq --> n_fb
    n_stop_trying(["stop trying?"])
    n_fb --> n_stop_trying
    n_propose(["propose"])
    n_fb --> n_propose
    p_seq["→"]
    fb -->|E| p_seq
    p_em_prop(["EM P?"])
    p_seq --> p_em_prop
    p_fb[?]
    p_seq --> p_fb
    p_terminate["terminate"]
    p_fb --> p_terminate
    p_jump["evaluate"]
    p_fb --> p_jump
    p_fb_seq["→"]
    p_fb --> p_fb_seq
    p_reject["reject"]
    p_fb_seq --> p_reject
    p_em_to_n["EM P &rarr; N<br/>(emit ER)"]
    p_fb_seq --> p_em_to_n
    a_seq["&rarr;"]
    fb -->|F| a_seq
    a_em_a(["EM A?"])
    a_seq --> a_em_a
    a_fb[?]
    a_seq --> a_fb
    a_terminate["terminate"]
    a_fb --> a_terminate
    a_current_terms(["current terms ok?"])
    a_fb --> a_current_terms
    a_propose["propose"]
    a_fb --> a_propose
    r_seq["&rarr;"]
    fb -->|G| r_seq
    r_em_r(["EM R?"])
    r_seq --> r_em_r
    r_fb[?]
    r_seq --> r_fb
    r_terminate["terminate"]
    r_fb --> r_terminate
    r_jump["evaluate"]
    r_fb --> r_jump
    r_fb_seq["&rarr;"]
    r_fb --> r_fb_seq
    r_reject["reject"]
    r_fb_seq --> r_reject
    r_em_to_a["EM R &rarr; A<br/>(emit EJ)"]
    r_fb_seq --> r_em_to_a

(A) The tree starts with a check to see whether no report has arrived or whether the report has already Closed (\(q^{rm} \in \{S{,}C\}\)). If either of these conditions is met, no further effort is needed, and the tree succeeds.

(B) Next, the tree checks whether the embargo has already eXited (\(q^{em} \in X\)). If it has, that leads the tree to succeed.

(C) Failing that, the treat checks to see if the case has moved outside the "habitable zone" for embargoes. The \({q^{cs}\not\in\cdot\cdot\cdot pxa}\) condition is true when attacks have been observed, an exploit has been made public, or information about the vulnerability has been made public. If one of those conditions is met and the embargo state is None (\(q^{em} \in N\)), the check returns Success, and the tree terminates, consistent with Negotiating Embargoes.

See also

• Negotiating Embargoes
• Propose Embargo Behavior
• Terminate Embargo Behavior
• Evaluate Embargo Behavior

Otherwise, we continue through each remaining EM state.

(D) When there is no embargo and there are no outstanding proposals (\(q^{em} \in N\)), the only options are to either stop trying or propose a new embargo. The decision to stop trying to achieve an embargo is left to individual Participants, although we did provide some relevant guidance in Negotiating Embargoes.

(E) When there is an outstanding embargo proposal (\(q^{em} \in P\)), we first attempt the terminate task. This task returns Success if there is a reason for \({q^{em} \in P \xrightarrow{r} N}\).

At this point, if there is no reason to terminate, we proceed to the evaluate task described below. The evaluate task returns Success if either the proposal is accepted or a counterproposal is made.

Assuming neither of these succeeds, we proceed to reject the proposal, returning to \(q^{em} \in N\) and emitting a corresponding \(ER\) message.

(F) The process within the Active (\(q^{em} \in A\)) state is similarly straightforward. If there is reason to terminate the embargo, do so. Otherwise, either the current embargo terms are acceptable, or a new embargo should be proposed.

(G) Finally, we handle the Revise EM state (\(q^{em} \in R\)). The structure of this branch mirrors that of the Proposed state discussed above. Again, we check to see if there is cause to terminate doing so, if needed. If termination is not indicated, we proceed once again to evaluate the proposed revision, either accepting or countering the proposal. When neither of these succeed, the revision is rejected and the EM state returns to \(q^{em} \in A\) with the original embargo terms intact. An \(EJ\) message conveys this information to the other Participants.