Subject: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-research-08.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 03:42:18 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Human Rights Protocol Considerations of the IETF.

        Title           : Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations
        Authors         : Niels ten Oever
                          Corinne Cath
	Filename        : draft-irtf-hrpc-research-08.txt
	Pages           : 72
	Date            : 2017-01-20

Abstract:
   This document aims to propose guidelines for human rights
   considerations, similar to the work done on the guidelines for
   privacy considerations [RFC6973].  This is achieved by providing a
   proposal for a vocabulary to discuss the relation between human
   rights and Internet protocols, an overview of the discussion in
   technical and academic literature and communities, a proposal for the
   mapping of the relation between human rights and technical concepts,
   as well as guidelines.

   If you want to see how to apply this work to your own, you can
   directly go to Section 6.  The rest of the document explains the
   background of the guidelines and how they were developed.

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force
   (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research
   and development activities.  This documents aims to be a consensus
   document of the Human Rights Protocol Consideration Research Group of
   the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF).

   Discussion of this draft at: [email-masked] //
   https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-hrpc-research/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-hrpc-research-08

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-hrpc-research-08

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:47:31 +0100

Dear all,

Based on all the really great suggestions, comments and discussions
we've had during and after the last call I created a new version.

I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to help this draft
getting better.

All the best,

Niels

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

On 01/20/2017 12:42 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [email-masked]

---

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 15:03:42 -0500

Hi,

Thanks for getting a revision out so quickly.  Am having trouble keeping
up with you and am still reading. I figure I need to reread it all as a
coherent piece of work.

It would be helpful if those who had issues with the reviewed version
could check the diff, at minimum, to see if they are now ok with what
the doc says. And then let the list know.

Also want to throw out another question that has been rumbling about in
the back of my thoughts: is this informational or experimental RFC track?

I think it is recommending something that can be tried experimentally
and is part of a research effort. On an informational, I would think it
was suggesting something that was no longer so speculative but was
information that could be used reliably without confusion, and I am not
sure the group thinks we are there yet.

It may just be a quibble, but would like opinions.

Continuing thanks to the authors and reviewers.

avri

from https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html

4.2.1 Experimental

The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that is
part of some research or development effort. Such a specification is
published for the general information of the Internet technical
community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to
editorial considerations and to verification that there has been
adequate coordination with the standards process (see below). An
Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet
research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working
Group, or it may be an individual contribution.

4.2.2 Informational

An "Informational" specification is published for the general
information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
Internet community consensus or recommendation. The Informational
designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a very
broad range of responsible informational documents from many sources,
subject only to editorial considerations and to verification that there
has been adequate coordination with the standards process (see section

>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:14:53 +0100

Thanks for this Avri,

This might also help with people making up their mind about your questions vis a vis informational vs experimental:

https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html

In my opinion this would work best as informational.

Best,

Niels

-- 

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:20:52 +0100

Avri,

I myself seek no more changes to the document.  I would, however, just
ask that you take on board seeking more reviewers prior to advancing
this work, specifically to check that references to work in fields
outside the classic expertise of the IRTF/IETF are being appropriately
applied.  I view this as a bare minimum test.

Eliot

---

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 08:24:03 -0500

Hi,

Thanks Eliot.  I would note that we have had at least on full fledged
academic who is not one of the normal IETF/IRTF crowd review it, and she
did make some remarks about the references and how they are being used. 
I have been looking for academics and other advocacy people to review
and will continue to do so.

Thanks

avri

---