From nobody Thu Feb 2 04:31:32 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@irtf.org Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3504012964B; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 04:31:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.42.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148603869121.29448.4294470768358931408.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 04:31:31 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-research-09.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 12:31:31 -0000 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-09.txt Pages : 72 Date : 2017-02-02 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: hrpc@irtf.org // 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-09 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-hrpc-research-09 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 nobody Fri Feb 3 21:11:56 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5610312945D for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 21:11:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.255 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jTE94SLNRwao for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 21:11:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0051.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B95A3128AB0 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 21:11:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7EDB6A858 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2017 05:11:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6176726940646F7269612E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 50, 0, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, avri@acm.org, :, RULES_HIT:41:152:355:379:800:854:960:967:973:988:989:1042:1260:1261:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1381:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1542:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:1963:2197:2199:2288:2393:2525:2560:2563:2682:2685:2691:2693:2741:2771:2859:2911:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3354:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4184:4425:5007:6119:7514:7576:7652:7875:7903:8985:9025:9545:10004:10128:10400:10848:11218:11232:11658:11914:12043:12050:12262:12679:12740:12760:12895:13071:13095:13149:13160:13161:13229:13230:14093:14096:14097:14180:14181:14721:14877:21060:21080:21366:21433:21451:30022:30036:30054:30063, 0, RBL:none, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, DomainCache:0, MSF:not bulk, SPF:fp, MSBL:0, DNSBL:none, Custom_rules:0:0:0, LFtime:2, LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: snail96_103f14d158348 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3360 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (wsip-68-15-42-104.ri.ri.cox.net [68.15.42.104]) (Authenticated sender: avri@doria.org) by omf10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2017 05:11:51 +0000 (UTC) To: hrpc@irtf.org From: avri doria Message-ID: <31cc5b79-9749-3cee-d7e2-1da2131ec566@acm.org> Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 00:11:50 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 170203-0, 02/03/2017), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Late review X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: avri@acm.org List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2017 05:11:55 -0000 Hi, I believe this was just done against -09. Was given permission to pass it on. avri -------- Original message -------- From: Michael Gurstein > Date: 2/3/17 17:59 (GMT-05:00) To: "Forum@Justnetcoalition. Org " > Cc: avri@acm.org Subject: FW: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-research-08.txt This is a remarkable and remarkably useful document. My two comments/caveats are (and they both refer to Human Rights and the UDHR) in general: 1. the report makes no reference and has no usefulness in the area of "collective/group rights" as for example "the right to collective bargaining", to "collective self-determination", to "collective expressions of political opposition" (e.g. including those conducted on-line) except as they can be parsed or reverted to "individual rights"--In a world going crazier by the day with the strong likelihood that individual rights will be increasingly difficult to maintain (and of less and less use in challenging political authority) this strikes me as a significant gap although it was clearly not what the work involved with this document was directed towards. 2. the report makes no reference and has no usefulness in the area of "social justice" as for example in the economic (and social) distribution effects of the Internet. Again with reference to the current political situation, the Internet and those who have been developing it and driving it (and who have systematically ignored (or derided) its social justice impact) bare some responsibility for the political malformations that we are seeing in several jurisdictions where the broad support of the Internet for globalization was in no way matched by a concern for the localized impacts of globalization. Again, of course this was clearly not what the work involved with this document was directed towards. I think that it is a pity that these two issues were not addressed and one would hope that in any future efforts in these areas the very very significant matters which collective rights and social justice raise not only for the Internet but also for society in general will have a significant priority. But nevertheless I congratulate all those who worked on this document for their very important efforts. (And Avri you can take my comments as "review" as per your request. M --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From nobody Sat Feb 4 13:25:52 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 416E4129521 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2017 13:25:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.255 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BGmSth1pvVUW for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2017 13:25:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0024.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B2151294D3 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2017 13:25:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6F9712BA14 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2017 21:25:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6176726940646F7269612E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 50, 0, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, avri@acm.org, :, RULES_HIT:2:41:69:152:355:379:602:800:854:960:966:967:969:973:988:989:1042:1260:1261:1263:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1381:1437:1515:1516:1518:1535:1593:1594:1605:1730:1747:1777:1792:1963:2194:2196:2198:2199:2200:2201:2393:2525:2553:2565:2682:2685:2693:2731:2736:2741:2859:2890:2891:2910:2911:2912:2917:2924:2926:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3770:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4031:4042:4049:4118:4250:4385:4425:5007:6119:6291:6684:7264:7266:7576:7603:7652:7802:7875:7903:8599:8985:9025:9094:9108:9545:9855:10004:10559:10848:10967:11218:11232:11257:11658:11914:12043:12109:12114:12262:12291:12295:12347:12663:12679:12683:12740:12760:12895:12903:13018:13019:13143:13161:13219:13229:13230:13846:21066:21080:21324:21326:21366:21433:21450:21451:30001:30021:30022:30026:30041:30051:30054:30083:30090:30091, 0, RBL:none, CacheIP:none, Bayesian: X-HE-Tag: crime45_4f74f4cd8f04b X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 7146 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (wsip-68-15-42-104.ri.ri.cox.net [68.15.42.104]) (Authenticated sender: avri@doria.org) by omf04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2017 21:25:45 +0000 (UTC) References: <00b901d27ed4$c883e7e0$598bb7a0$@ch> To: hrpc@irtf.org From: avri doria X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <00b901d27ed4$c883e7e0$598bb7a0$@ch> Message-ID: <1e7b5998-6a0f-8f63-43c7-5c77c19d6a03@acm.org> Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 16:25:44 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <00b901d27ed4$c883e7e0$598bb7a0$@ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 170204-0, 02/04/2017), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Fwd: RE: []] FW: I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-research-08.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: avri@acm.org List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2017 21:25:50 -0000 Another late review -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: RE: [JNC - Forum] FW: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-research-08.txt Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 11:52:29 +0100 From: Richard Hill To: 'Internet governance related discussions' CC: avri@acm.org Dear Avri, That you very much for inviting comments. I hope that you will take into account my review below, even if some people think that I am somewhat of a tech expert. I have two overall comments, and some detailed comments, see below. Best, Richard -------------------------------------------- 1) Overall: introductory material ================================= I find that the introductory part of the paper is influenced by what I consider to be the old-fashioned view that "the Internet" is or should be somehow immune from the rules that govern the rest of the world. For me, it has always been obvious that offline law applies equally online. For example, it is not legitimate to argue that child abuse material should be permitted on the Internet. Yet that would be the consequence of accepting a principle (cited in the introduction) such as "There's a freedom about the Internet: As long as we accept the rules of sending packets around, we can send packets containing anything to anywhere." Conversely, application of the long-standing rules governing the confidentiality of physical mail to E-Mail would have avoided the surveillance mess that we now face. That is, if we recognize that E-Mail is a modern equivalent of physical mail, and that offline law applies equally online, then E-Mails could not be read by government agencies without a court order based on probable cause. Sadly, the opposite is true in many countries. 2) Overall: focus on specific rights ==================================== The paper correctly notes that there are many human rights, but that not all are relevant for ICTs. A partial catalog, with references to sources, of human rights related to ICTs is at: http://www.apig.ch/UNIGE%20Catalog.pdf While the RFC does mention rights other than freedom of speech and privacy, it tends to focus on those particular rights. I think that a more balanced approach would be better, and I will make some specific suggestions. 3) Specific suggestions ======================= Section 2 --------- Add the following definitions: Democratic: Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives (see art. 20 [ICCPR]) Living Standard: The right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions (see art. 11.1 [ICESCR]) Outcome Transparency: In this context outcome transparency is linked to the comprehensibility of the effects of a protocol in relation to the choices it makes for both user and protocol developers and implementers, including the comprehensibility of possible unintended consequences of protocol choices (e.g. lack of authenticity may lead to lack of integrity and negative externalities) Section 5.2.2, Figure 2 ----------------------- Add a new box: First column: Transparency, Outcome Transparency, Connectivity, Accessibility, Localization, Decentralization Second column: Right to adequate standard of living Section 6.1 ----------- Add a new penultimate paragraph, reading: "A partial catalog of human rights related to ICTs, including economic rights, is found in [HILL]." Section 6.2 ----------- Add the following new sub-sections 6.2.19. Democratic Question(s): Does your protocol infringe on, or weaken, the right of every citizen to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives? Explanation: certain protocols impose, de facto, policy choices, and thus deprive citizens of the right to make those policy choices. Example: a protocol that results in personal data being publicly available deprives citizens of their right to make a policy that protects personal data. 6.2.20. Living Standard Question(s): Does your protocol infringe on, or weaken, directly or indirectly, the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions? Explanation: certain protocols can have dramatic effects on economic conditions. This does not imply that the protocol should not be developed or implemented, however, some consideration should be given to the economic effects and how to deal with them. Example: a protocol that automates the filing of briefs in court could result in the unemployment of many court clerks. As a remedial measure, it could be envisaged to train the concerned people so that they can perform other tasks. 6.2.21. Outcome Transparency Question(s): Are the effects of your protocol fully and easily comprehensible, including with respect to unintended consequences of protocol choices? Explanation: certain technical choice may have unintended consequences. Example: lack of authenticity may lead to lack of integrity and negative externalities, of which spam is an example. Lack of data that could be used for billing and accounting can lead to so-called "free" arrangements which obscure the actual costs and distribution of the costs, for example the barter arrangements that are commonly used for Internet interconnection; and the commercial exploitation of private data for targeted advertising which is the most common funding model for the so-called "free" services such as search engines and social networks. Section 12.1 ------------ Add: [HILL] Hill, Richard, "Partial Catalog of Human Rights Related to ICT Activities", 2014, < http://www.apig.ch/UNIGE%20Catalog.pdf> --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From nobody Sun Feb 5 10:04:32 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2928E12944A for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 10:04:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.254 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.254 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P_9S_aLpuQ5j for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 10:04:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0161.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.161]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18F86129445 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 10:04:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC3A29DDE8 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 18:04:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6176726940646F7269612E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 50, 0, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, avri@acm.org, :, RULES_HIT:2:41:69:355:379:602:800:854:960:966:967:969:973:988:989:1042:1260:1261:1263:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1381:1437:1515:1516:1518:1535:1593:1594:1605:1683:1730:1747:1777:1792:1963:2194:2196:2198:2199:2200:2201:2393:2525:2551:2553:2567:2682:2685:2693:2731:2736:2741:2859:2891:2892:2910:2912:2917:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4031:4050:4119:4250:4385:5007:6119:6291:7576:7603:7652:7802:7875:7903:8599:8985:9025:9108:9545:9855:10004:10128:10559:10848:10967:11232:11257:11658:11914:12043:12050:12109:12114:12262:12291:12295:12347:12438:12679:12683:12740:12760:12895:12903:13018:13019:13143:13161:13229:13230:13846:21066:21080:21324:21326:21366:21433:21450:21451:30021:30022:30026:30041:30045:30051:30054:30063:30075:30083:30090:30091, 0, RBL:none, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, Domain X-HE-Tag: soap47_7e0867c936e3d X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 8495 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (wsip-68-15-42-104.ri.ri.cox.net [68.15.42.104]) (Authenticated sender: avri@doria.org) by omf13.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 18:04:26 +0000 (UTC) References: <011201d27fab$f6062a20$e2127e60$@ch> To: hrpc@irtf.org From: avri doria X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <011201d27fab$f6062a20$e2127e60$@ch> Message-ID: <1cdf78bc-c911-e4cc-5ae7-25a89721709c@acm.org> Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 13:04:24 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <011201d27fab$f6062a20$e2127e60$@ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 170205-0, 02/05/2017), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Fwd: RE: Mail regarding draft-irtf-hrpc-research X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: avri@acm.org List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2017 18:04:30 -0000 -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: RE: Mail regarding draft-irtf-hrpc-research Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 13:32:48 +0100 From: Richard Hill To: draft-irtf-hrpc-research@ietf.org CC: avri@acm.org One additional detailed comment: Section 6.1 contains the following statement: "A realistic example to consider is when opposition group members (or those identified as such) in totalitarian regimes are subjected to torture on the basis of information gathered by the regime through information leakage in protocols." Unfortunately it is not only totalitarian regimes that practice torture: regimes that consider themselves to be democratic do so also. And regimes that consider themselves to be democratic engage in extrajudicial killing or detention, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_detention So I suggest that the statement be reworded as follows: "A realistic example to consider is when individuals identified as treats to the state are subjected to torture or extrajudicial killing or detention on the basis of information gathered by state agencies through information leakage in protocols." Best, Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Hill [mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch] > Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2017 12:45 > To: 'draft-irtf-hrpc-research@ietf.org' > Cc: 'avri@acm.org' > Subject: Mail regarding draft-irtf-hrpc-research > > Dear Niels and Corrine, > > That you very much for this work. > > I have two overall comments, and some detailed comments, see below. > > Best, > Richard > -------------------------------------------- > > > 1) Overall: introductory material > ================================= > > I find that the introductory part of the paper is influenced by what I > consider to be the old-fashioned view that "the Internet" is or should > be somehow immune from the rules that govern the rest of the world. > For me, it has always been obvious that offline law applies equally > online. > > For example, it is not legitimate to argue that child abuse material > should be permitted on the Internet. Yet that would be the consequence > of accepting a principle (cited in the introduction) such as "There's > a freedom about the Internet: As long as we accept the rules of sending > packets around, we can send packets containing anything to anywhere." > > Conversely, application of the long-standing rules governing the > confidentiality of physical mail to E-Mail would have avoided the > surveillance mess that we now face. That is, if we recognize that E- > Mail is a modern equivalent of physical mail, and that offline law > applies equally online, then E-Mails could not be read by government > agencies without a court order based on probable cause. Sadly, the > opposite is true in many countries. > > 2) Overall: focus on specific rights > ==================================== > > The paper correctly notes that there are many human rights, but that > not all are relevant for ICTs. A partial catalog, with references to > sources, of human rights related to ICTs is at: > > http://www.apig.ch/UNIGE%20Catalog.pdf > > While the RFC does mention rights other than freedom of speech and > privacy, it tends to focus on those particular rights. > > I think that a more balanced approach would be better, and I will make > some specific suggestions. > > 3) Specific suggestions > ======================= > > Section 2 > --------- > > Add the following definitions: > > Democratic: Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity to > take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely > chosen representatives (see art. 20 [ICCPR]) > > Living Standard: The right of everyone to an adequate standard of > living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing > and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions > (see art. 11.1 [ICESCR]) > > Outcome Transparency: In this context outcome transparency is linked to > the comprehensibility of the effects of a protocol in relation to the > choices it makes for both user and protocol developers and > implementers, including the comprehensibility of possible unintended > consequences of protocol choices (e.g. lack of authenticity may lead to > lack of integrity and negative externalities) > > > Section 5.2.2, Figure 2 > ----------------------- > > Add a new box: > > First column: Transparency, Outcome Transparency, Connectivity, > Accessibility, Localization, Decentralization Second column: Right to > adequate standard of living > > Section 6.1 > ----------- > > Add a new penultimate paragraph, reading: > > "A partial catalog of human rights related to ICTs, including economic > rights, is found in [HILL]." > > > Section 6.2 > ----------- > > Add the following new sub-sections > > 6.2.19. Democratic > > Question(s): Does your protocol infringe on, or weaken, the right of > every citizen to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly > or through freely chosen representatives? > > Explanation: certain protocols impose, de facto, policy choices, and > thus deprive citizens of the right to make those policy choices. > > Example: a protocol that results in personal data being publicly > available deprives citizens of their right to make a policy that > protects personal data. > > > 6.2.20. Living Standard > > Question(s): Does your protocol infringe on, or weaken, directly or > indirectly, the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for > himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, > and to the continuous improvement of living conditions? > > Explanation: certain protocols can have dramatic effects on economic > conditions. This does not imply that the protocol should not be > developed or implemented, however, some consideration should be given > to the economic effects and how to deal with them. > > Example: a protocol that automates the filing of briefs in court could > result in the unemployment of many court clerks. As a remedial measure, > it could be envisaged to train the concerned people so that they can > perform other tasks. > > 6.2.21. Outcome Transparency > > Question(s): Are the effects of your protocol fully and easily > comprehensible, including with respect to unintended consequences of > protocol choices? > > Explanation: certain technical choice may have unintended consequences. > > Example: lack of authenticity may lead to lack of integrity and > negative externalities, of which spam is an example. Lack of data that > could be used for billing and accounting can lead to so-called "free" > arrangements which obscure the actual costs and distribution of the > costs, for example the barter arrangements that are commonly used for > Internet interconnection; and the commercial exploitation of private > data for targeted advertising which is the most common funding model > for the so-called "free" services such as search engines and social > networks. > > > Section 12.1 > ------------ > > Add: > > [HILL] Hill, Richard, "Partial Catalog of Human Rights Related to ICT > Activities", 2014, < http://www.apig.ch/UNIGE%20Catalog.pdf> > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From nobody Mon Feb 6 05:55:04 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67DB0129577 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 05:55:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id phNCI5KLRlIH for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 05:55:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A095129D7D for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 05:55:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.104.138]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cajkx-0007YV-9m for hrpc@irtf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 14:54:59 +0100 References: <148638892604.18946.6134335780489434422.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: "hrpc@irtf.org" From: Niels ten Oever X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <148638892604.18946.6134335780489434422.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Message-ID: <5ea7feec-1292-9fc8-4533-00a69145702d@article19.org> Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 14:54:57 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <148638892604.18946.6134335780489434422.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="N5X0NwJWjliLWJitkeXbX8ptqkuAhi7wM" X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: 094aa93d217637c77569e156d4a0c864 Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity-00.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 13:55:03 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --N5X0NwJWjliLWJitkeXbX8ptqkuAhi7wM Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="S2TFJTE24gjpbFj0RWmduR6tloeuhNaxe"; protected-headers="v1" From: Niels ten Oever To: "hrpc@irtf.org" Message-ID: <5ea7feec-1292-9fc8-4533-00a69145702d@article19.org> Subject: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity-00.txt References: <148638892604.18946.6134335780489434422.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <148638892604.18946.6134335780489434422.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> --S2TFJTE24gjpbFj0RWmduR6tloeuhNaxe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, At the IETF meeting in Seoul it was brought up we should further investigate the topic of anonymity. Based on discussions I had with some of you I set up a rough structure in this -00 draft. I would be very interested to hear from you all whether this would be a relevant and interesting angle that could contributed to our work. I would also be very happy to co-author this with people who have more knowledge on anonymity that I do, so feel free to volunteer and suggest text. Looking forward to discuss. Best, Niels PS Pull requests can be made here: https://github.com/nllz/IRTF-HRPC/blob/master/draft-anonymity.md -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity-00.tx= t Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 05:48:46 -0800 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Niels ten Oever , Niels Oever A new version of I-D, draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Niels ten Oever and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity Revision: 00 Title: Anonymity, Human Rights and Internet Protocols Document date: 2017-02-06 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 6 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity-00.txt= Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity= -00 Abstract: Anonymity is less discussed topic in the IETF than for instance security [RFC3552] or privacy [RFC6973]. This can be attributed to the fact anonymity is a hard technical problem or that anonymizing user data is not of specific market interest. It remains a fact that 'most internet users would like to be anonymous online at least occasionally' [Pew]. This document aims to break down the different meanings and implications of anonymity on a mediated computer network. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submiss= ion until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat --S2TFJTE24gjpbFj0RWmduR6tloeuhNaxe-- --N5X0NwJWjliLWJitkeXbX8ptqkuAhi7wM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAliYgDIACgkQDtg/OkaK yLM4Pw/9HyGcDW4GkZ18ObRiTEU7dBMYX+qr/xPbKPaK+u1xeMEoRioKSMTrIR3L c0fNVWNhtnv6R7rTowH/gl6uWp1M9vTcb2ZxVCCund5ZV+uYXC5uAmbqiLUO8uWE kijTuic64tEkD63QElGSwi7sZv4pFbRgGYumHjY+PFXuvUH8qDaq7pB/3vs/xvBc G/90UCad1GyDXSHKs2PVwdS7x6lgc/h6xQlYBy+A5rVf7xntwd9ECBCFM154aiKE 4lhnKQyGYl2C+eXPZ1q/41wmZ8e+eYBMM/gnd1KAYzd+nUN9jl1FKgZjwWFKB0Po gbw0pLK0r+4GVZavXtm6k/5kKHFUZ8jrQ21idorYIx4UuG3BUDlfxyaXqvLBL7hs YpFU03CQip1vFH/T7GGq4saltQmizrEbfNXj76nZWnzHG7nq0Tun6Prm69mGc8YG 8w430Lb73XS0yEixHWhQYjZKT0bna9/bWTQ8EF8/iSY/1IA4h0d2Tkx2tSNj01jP niygl/PT83MWtl3ejR7I3DO7kGaJWBw7oiRsfynydijcb3rGz2FeftT2tzJ2SAk1 QT1WMmK0OfK0bVjEdaLqFQMvwSVC+7Nv7h6vI20N7wJg9sUeA4lWOPeWs0gbTNiR BuRoRwGViXjdAtMJ+2IJgcdbGeN0w/t345hIsVvSgzZnRftvJYk= =xatm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --N5X0NwJWjliLWJitkeXbX8ptqkuAhi7wM-- From nobody Mon Feb 6 08:15:27 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47300129ED2 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 08:15:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZkZYw8WRCMKb for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 08:15:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wj0-x244.google.com (mail-wj0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c01::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FDA7128E19 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 08:15:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wj0-x244.google.com with SMTP id kq3so3604446wjc.3 for ; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 08:15:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=4T+EPLbqm+9JzrKt1SecCCMUoDYpBJFE4RoPn9uIkCE=; b=lFy6M8dtX0tX3xvsd7yOEytEtX95aICUTwtzqYLgpivMUWUk00THzbnurtpFSdXwET 1jHsoQZ4J/wAGXpBgbPUzDr8RuOSSs6LlwG/i9yKqwXxHE6WsXesELjWAvd2BF9UTHAo c7qsyDJiv/4FKALmtvB74B2ENkABtvyD4V6qDKtwD28XDEDCWatfWh9cbFp427gkBDJI UxmlJIb758Wu15FkjtWSDSIuX6BBsVdYiUqfFwsrztH19InbY+eY+LRAwAC6ZXvHi5SI zhCTA4cMEWCn8oOEk+WGR3vPDyII+X8XFE43OE80Tamx2kOTEHCy6T4oRlYr7sh86wSJ KRog== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4T+EPLbqm+9JzrKt1SecCCMUoDYpBJFE4RoPn9uIkCE=; b=IBawcOJ5qfjkMj98CVd2Lm1tjJ+0uosO3DRNcIgpPHsIBsF9JGAI7cUeV4SAA2BQf5 EWh9WDjcD4ugmOowCeGcguRtZ6bGv0H8Tlr6+QlC28Id6VxN7qA4ISWZU6+DxJrMM957 gkfZxij6JTieZs8rtiKt1hETccaaZYNmplWEuymJM192h/XQOU7HJNi6xDlS5etfG+mE L08FHtnxU0fXpHQ21WIe4JNFVMEVBqbeKWE40wwwljN1iIFJNSPNTE8EG0KFmCii/zyC YeEzzQ8szs1SXwLne6NSMrmHAYV1vc1T7efJFHHOjRDhy8xXdIktLB7hz3T4/LcuylHq ckgA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mXTm9gO+H+ZSoXxYfyrAd08ghI2+57umDFr756di4lTbjCBa2E+VwQBDCPZT3s8enjlz0LbczUjWFoJg== X-Received: by 10.28.96.130 with SMTP id u124mr10224837wmb.81.1486397722172; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 08:15:22 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: cattekwaad@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.200.194 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 08:15:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <31cc5b79-9749-3cee-d7e2-1da2131ec566@acm.org> References: <31cc5b79-9749-3cee-d7e2-1da2131ec566@acm.org> From: Corinne Cath Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 17:15:21 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: tps_XcG1ADaQBlcTuAxXDG2JLio Message-ID: To: Avri Doria , gurstein@gmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1148f03a39acc20547def0a6 Archived-At: Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: Re: [hrpc] Late review X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 16:15:26 -0000 --001a1148f03a39acc20547def0a6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Michael, Thank you for your review. Some comments in-line responding to your great suggestions. > This is a remarkable and remarkably useful document. > =E2=80=8B Thanks!=E2=80=8B > > My two comments/caveats are (and they both refer to Human Rights and the > UDHR) in general: > 1. the report makes no reference and has no usefulness in the area of > "collective/group rights" as for example "the right to collective > bargaining", to "collective self-determination", to "collective expressio= ns > of political opposition" (e.g. including those conducted on-line) except = as > they can be parsed or reverted to "individual rights"--In a world going > crazier by the day with the strong likelihood that individual rights will > be > increasingly difficult to maintain (and of less and less use in challengi= ng > political authority) this strikes me as a significant gap although it was > clearly not what the work involved with this document was directed toward= s. > > =E2=80=8BThank you for pointing this out. Although group rights are relev= ant to the work done at the HRPC group we have decided to focus our initial efforts on first and second generation human rights. As much as we would like to cover broader issues, at this point in time we have to limit the scope of the research. We have also focused on individual rights as these are clearly enshrined in globally recognized UN human rights documents, like the ones you mention. Such broad documents are harder to come by for group rights's issues. However, we will certainly consider your suggestions for future work in this area. =E2=80=8B > 2. the report makes no reference and has no usefulness in the area of > "social justice" as for example in the economic (and social) distribution > effects of the Internet. Again with reference to the current political > situation, the Internet and those who have been developing it and driving > it > (and who have systematically ignored (or derided) its social justice > impact) > bare some responsibility for the political malformations that we are seei= ng > in several jurisdictions where the broad support of the Internet for > globalization was in no way matched by a concern for the localized > impacts of > globalization. Again, of course this was clearly not what the work > involved > with this document was directed towards. > =E2=80=8BAgain a very good point. However, much as we believe that social j= ustice issues are of equal importance as some of the things we cover we also believe that the GAIA working group is better placed to cover the specific issues you mentioned. And while social justice issues regularly overlap with human right issues, considering the strong legal basis that exist for understanding, and incorporating human rights in organizational processes =E2=80=8Bthe focus of this research groups has been on the human rights. > I think that it is a pity that these two issues were not addressed and on= e > would hope that in any future efforts in these areas the very very > significant matters which collective rights and social justice raise not > only for the Internet but also for society in general will have a > significant priority. > =E2=80=8BNoted! =E2=80=8B > > But nevertheless I congratulate all those who worked on this document for > their very important efforts. > > (And Avri you can take my comments as "review" as per your request. > > M > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > --=20 Corinne J.N. Cath Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath Email: ccath@turing.ac.uk & corinnecath@gmail.com Twitter: @C_Cath --001a1148f03a39acc20547def0a6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Michael,=C2=A0

Thank you for your review. Some commen= ts in-line responding to your great suggestions.=C2=A0

=
This is a remarkable and remarkably useful document.
=E2=80=8B
T= hanks!=E2=80=8B

My two comments/caveats are (and they both refer to Human Rights and the UDHR) in general:
1. the report makes no reference and has no usefulness in the area of
"collective/group rights" as for example "the right to colle= ctive
bargaining", to "collective self-determination", to "co= llective expressions
of political opposition" (e.g. including those conducted on-line) exce= pt as
they can be parsed or reverted to "individual rights"--In a world= going
crazier by the day with the strong likelihood that individual rights will b= e
increasingly difficult to maintain (and of less and less use in challenging=
political authority) this strikes me as a significant gap although it was clearly not what the work involved with this document was directed towards.=

=E2=80=8BThank you for pointing this out. Although group rights= are relevant to the work done at the HRPC group we have decided to focus o= ur initial efforts on first and second generation human rights. As much as = we would like to cover broader issues, at this point in time we have to lim= it the scope of the research. We have also focused on individual rights as = these are clearly enshrined in globally recognized UN human rights document= s, like the ones you mention. Such broad documents are harder to come by fo= r group rights's issues. However, we will certainly consider your sugge= stions for future work in this area.=C2=A0

=E2=80=8B
2. the report makes no reference and has no usefulness in the area of
"social justice" as for example in the economic (and social) dist= ribution
effects of the Internet. Again with reference to the current political
situation, the Internet and those who have been developing it and driving i= t
(and who have systematically ignored (or derided) its social justice impact= )
bare some responsibility for the political malformations that we are seeing=
in several jurisdictions where the broad support of the Internet for
globalization was in no way matched by a concern for the localized
impacts of
globalization.=C2=A0 Again, of course this was clearly not what the work in= volved
with this document was directed towards.

=E2=80= =8BAgain a very good point. However, much as we believe that social justice= issues are of equal importance as some of the things we cover we also beli= eve that the GAIA working group is better placed to cover the specific issu= es you mentioned. And while social justice issues regularly overlap with hu= man right issues, considering the strong legal basis that exist for underst= anding, and incorporating human rights in organizational processes =E2=80= =8Bthe focus of this research groups has been on the human rights.=C2=A0

I think that it is a pity that these two issues were not addressed and one<= br> would hope that in any future efforts in these areas the very very
significant matters which collective rights and social justice raise not only for the Internet but also for society in general will have a
significant priority.

=E2=80=8BNoted! =E2=80=8B

But nevertheless I congratulate all those who worked on this document for their very important efforts.

(And Avri you can take my comments as "review" as per your reques= t.

M

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

_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc



--
Corinne J.N. Cath=
Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute=

Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/co= rinne-cath
Email: ccath@turing.ac.uk & corinnecath@gmail.com
Twitter: @C_Cath
--001a1148f03a39acc20547def0a6-- From nobody Wed Feb 8 11:49:53 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@irtf.org Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A4D12A00A; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 11:49:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.42.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148658338594.4254.13199679757695661687.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 11:49:45 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-research-10.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 19:49:46 -0000 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-10.txt Pages : 74 Date : 2017-02-08 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: hrpc@irtf.org // 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-10 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-hrpc-research-10 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 nobody Wed Feb 8 11:51:54 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6CCA12706D for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 11:51:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.255 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JIMe2P1zge1q for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 11:51:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0070.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1494129DF0 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 11:51:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E14712BA16 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 19:51:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6176726940646F7269612E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 50, 0, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, avri@acm.org, :, RULES_HIT:41:152:355:379:854:967:973:988:989:1042:1260:1261:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1381:1437:1513:1515:1516:1518:1521:1534:1541:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:1960:2393:2525:2560:2563:2682:2685:2689:2691:2692:2693:2859:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3353:3673:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4184:4362:5007:7652:7903:8985:9025:10004:10128:10400:10848:11232:11233:11658:11914:12043:12050:13005:13017:13018:13019:13069:13071:13311:13357:14096:14097:14180:14181:14721:14764:14777:21060:21080:21366:21433:30012:30022:30036:30054:30079, 0, RBL:none, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, DomainCache:0, MSF:not bulk, SPF:fp, MSBL:0, DNSBL:none, Custom_rules:0:0:0, LFtime:2, LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: fire29_49ecfafa5e131 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2226 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [64.120.53.43]) (Authenticated sender: avri@doria.org) by omf07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 19:51:47 +0000 (UTC) To: hrpc@irtf.org From: avri doria Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:51:46 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 170208-0, 02/08/2017), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: avri@acm.org List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 19:51:53 -0000 Hi, Finally got through reviewing the latest draft and comments. Apologies for taking this long. A lot to think about in those comments. I also sent Neils and Corrine a copy with a bunch of typos marked,, which I expect they will cover in -10 I believe that the latest version -09 has responded to most of the comments and understand that -10, soon to come out will respond to others. At this point, I believe we have a document that has rough consensus to move forward. But, not all of the changes were trivial or editorial and thus will be calling another LC, for 2 weeks this time, to give people a chance to take another pass and make sure the the cumulative effect of the changes really has rough consensus and that the group is roughly comfortable with the way issues were resolved. When the 2ndLC starts, I would also like to ask people to comment on whether this should be a Informational or Experimental draft. Niels and I differ on this, with both of us quoting the guidelines as argument. So would like to hear from others in the group. For Informational (briefly) One reading say that if it not code the experimented with it can't be experimental For Experimental (briefly): this is just a first approximation at Considerations for protocols and we would like to get feedback on experimental use. thanks avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From nobody Wed Feb 8 12:20:02 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 295761295BC for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 12:20:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umich.edu Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2xe9dAQhiQZx for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 12:20:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yw0-x229.google.com (mail-yw0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E37912941C for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 12:19:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yw0-x229.google.com with SMTP id w75so93094305ywg.1 for ; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:19:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umich.edu; s=google-2016-06-03; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Qk1dUFq3ulYMghWwdk6mnzq1l25G+0TbgEbeywSBTLs=; b=Of1ilUu/hsp6IXhtZo0Iu/gvbsdBw4gn8WiIHs21QCfYozu92J5zWzJqHxeHSalUmy rekdqz8LnPvAEI/0qvFWC0bMofv0x/TqM8WiPVxED+z1x91UgiUElQhkmCj9KlMXTJrh sBC8lAuZA8nLowz0ZwqiduqrKUBTAiDQPli1JnVSIxfPJFXRF2iwh4mJnItHHAtDFOGr DTAb9ba1NP61C/1XFTS9wUAKpTXuGOB6bfm7ufio1Hiky2yG5exMG3CfdKGgOUJ6+lYG 0hST/KTUijEV/ZgXe/xp/p/mE9YA5RPL/kQ88YYg/bgo5ugcUagqzJ3/KgGdUZQDpsaG jLmA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Qk1dUFq3ulYMghWwdk6mnzq1l25G+0TbgEbeywSBTLs=; b=kJuf8SBjPSDmZ/RfAuYDDuOC2EAPBL5AkDrY/lb3tHph3d4fB6Fyee+/4dokcvRCi0 RFzq46uYKvwdsmZV/pbQ9oqS4Xk3CZZ7K0AcppEkPF+aHZqas+thUxtVGSzSxUg+82Sy FToAybnTH1pwoD4RMNrUOepFDM4IzbJ7+pDnG4DsKZRjTJ9dYkZu3Yly16zS3hNNGsXI xxOmV/UXH5gF0K67l4mqp1KtsdNcPvloMMT3FA6BoS1Fjukiu1jITwOXq/30rfD38GNQ L70OyFb/JahM5AO9HzRszrK0ggKi+YxG80qDbRj8MbPR3Zv083H88s9pp0W2dh48btMl tvTA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39ntf46pjEbxIAnUkPp2oo5yeue1o51YUKKCnGDa7Q8al37Jh8ZmoAYRWoNUXaT5gGR+ounvdVnNbBcg0elf X-Received: by 10.129.81.12 with SMTP id f12mr16034942ywb.80.1486585199257; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:19:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.13.237.68 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 12:19:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Bob Harold Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:19:58 -0500 Message-ID: To: avri@acm.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11463018bb194d05480a96fc Archived-At: Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: Re: [hrpc] Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 20:20:02 -0000 --001a11463018bb194d05480a96fc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:51 PM, avri doria wrote: > Hi, > > Finally got through reviewing the latest draft and comments. Apologies > for taking this long. A lot to think about in those comments. > > I also sent Neils and Corrine a copy with a bunch of typos marked,, > which I expect they will cover in -10 > > I believe that the latest version -09 has responded to most of the > comments and understand that -10, soon to come out will respond to > others. At this point, I believe we have a document that has rough > consensus to move forward. > > But, not all of the changes were trivial or editorial and thus will be > calling another LC, for 2 weeks this time, to give people a chance to > take another pass and make sure the the cumulative effect of the changes > really has rough consensus and that the group is roughly comfortable > with the way issues were resolved. > > When the 2ndLC starts, I would also like to ask people to comment on > whether this should be a Informational or Experimental draft. Niels and > I differ on this, with both of us quoting the guidelines as argument. > So would like to hear from others in the group. > > For Informational (briefly) One reading say that if it not code the > experimented with it can't be experimental > > For Experimental (briefly): this is just a first approximation at > Considerations for protocols and we would like to get feedback on > experimental use. > > thanks > > avri > > I would prefer "Informational", since it is difficult to 'experiment' with this. It is just 'things to consider' when working on protocols. -- Bob Harold --001a11463018bb194d05480a96fc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:51 PM, avri doria <avri@acm.org>= wrote:
Hi,

Finally got through reviewing the latest draft and comments.=C2=A0 Apologie= s
for taking this long.=C2=A0 A lot to think about in those comments.

I also sent Neils and Corrine a copy with a bunch of typos marked,,
which I expect they will cover in -10

I believe that the latest version -09 has responded to most of the
comments and understand that -10, soon to come out will respond to
others.=C2=A0 At this point, I believe we have a document that has rough consensus to move forward.

But, not all of the changes were trivial or editorial and thus will be
calling another LC, for 2 weeks this time, to give people a chance to
take another pass and make sure the the cumulative effect of the changes really has rough consensus and that the group is roughly comfortable
with the way issues were resolved.

When the 2ndLC starts, I would also like to ask people to comment on
whether this should be a Informational or Experimental draft. Niels and
I differ on this, with both of us quoting the guidelines as argument.
So would like to hear from others in the group.

For Informational (briefly) One reading say that if it not code the
experimented with it can't be experimental

For Experimental (briefly): this is just a first approximation at
Considerations for protocols and we would like to get feedback on
experimental use.

thanks

avri


I would prefer "Informational&quo= t;, since it is difficult to 'experiment' with this.=C2=A0 It is ju= st 'things to consider' when working on protocols.

--=C2=A0
Bob Harold


=
--001a11463018bb194d05480a96fc-- From nobody Thu Feb 9 12:37:54 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E42EA12706D for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:37:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.234 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.234 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iWfa2T-ofs8r for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:37:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0099.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2566A1295AA for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:37:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EE2229DD78 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 20:37:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6176726940646F7269612E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 50, 0, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, avri@acm.org, :, RULES_HIT:41:152:355:379:800:854:967:973:988:989:1042:1260:1261:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1381:1437:1513:1515:1516:1518:1521:1534:1541:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:1801:1963:2198:2199:2393:2525:2553:2568:2628:2682:2685:2693:2859:2911:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3673:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3873:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4184:4250:4321:4362:4425:4605:5007:6117:6119:7652:7903:8660:8985:9025:9121:10004:10400:10848:11232:11233:11658:11914:12043:12050:12109:12114:12679:12740:12895:13019:13069:13071:13148:13161:13229:13230:13311:13357:13845:13846:14096:14097:14180:14181:14581:14721:14764:14777:14819:21060:21080:21212:21366:21433:21451:30022:30046:30054:30083:30090, 0, RBL:none, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, DomainCache:0, MSF:not bulk, SPF:fp, MSBL:0, DNSBL:none, Custom_rules:0:0:0, LFtime:2, LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: loaf22_5f0753dbee308 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2181 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (wsip-68-15-42-104.ri.ri.cox.net [68.15.42.104]) (Authenticated sender: avri@doria.org) by omf05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 20:37:32 +0000 (UTC) From: avri doria To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <5ebc4c20-5ff1-1f3f-df5c-31213bee2890@acm.org> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 15:37:30 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 170209-1, 02/09/2017), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] 2nd Research Group Last Call for draft-irtf-hrpc-research X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: avri@acm.org List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 20:37:44 -0000 Hi, As mentioned in an earlier note, many changes were made to the draft in response to comments made during the last last call. As these changes were not just editorial, decided we needed another RGLC to review the changes. As of now starting a 2 weeks call on: Title : Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations Authors : Niels ten Oever Corinne Cath Filename : draft-irtf-hrpc-research-10.txt Pages : 74 Date : 2017-02-08 The call will end on Noon 1200 UTC 24 Feb 2017, 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-10 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-irtf-hrpc-research-10 For a diff to the previous RGLC version (-07) Use: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff and refer to drafts: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-irtf-hrpc-research-07.txt https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-hrpc-research-10.txt Please send comments to: hrpc@irtf.org Please forward this call to anyone you think should consider reviewing this= doc. Thanks Avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From nobody Thu Feb 9 13:35:10 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01D231295B3 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 13:35:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.221 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5D85TtecKUum for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 13:35:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay15.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay15.mail.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.163]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E695128B44 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 13:35:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp4.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.207]) by relay15.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1cbwMp-0001Kp-n7 for hrpc@irtf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 21:35:03 +0000 Received: from [78.156.66.104] (helo=localhost) by smtp4.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1cbwMp-0000A7-D5 for hrpc@irtf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 21:35:03 +0000 Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 21:34:25 +0000 From: Joss Wright To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20170209213425.GL14830@lovecraft> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) X-Oxford-Username: inet0123 X-Oxmail-Spam-Status: score=0.0 tests=none X-Oxmail-Spam-Level: / Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Comments on "Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations" X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 21:35:08 -0000 Hello, I just read through the "Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations" document. I have a few, relatively random, comments from my read-through. (Apologies here -- I didn't have time to do a really thorough review, and there were a few points about which I was slightly uncomfortable or felt that the document neglected or, alternatively, overemphasised. It seemed best not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, though, so am sending these comments along anyway.) Section 2: * Censorship-resistance Censorship has not yet been at this point defined -- that definition should probably come in first. I also have a general problem with the political implications of 'censorship', although I accept its widespread use. It might be nice to have the distinction drawn between the technical terms such as 'filtering' and 'blocking', and the more normatively-loaded term "censorship"? Censorship is brought in later in this section as 'internet censorship'. I would argue that you should harmonise the terms -- if you use 'internet censorship' and not just 'censorship' then you should also use 'internet censorship resistance'. I can see that this definition is partially taken from Elahi and Goldberg, but what is this 'relevant for decision making' element? Is suppression of, say, works of art not censorship by this definition? (For that matter, is removal of child pornography not 'censorship'? This is precisely why I prefer terms such as 'filtering'.) * Strong encryption I checked the referenced RFC, but didn't see this definition of 'a large amount of computing power'. I would argue that modern usage of 'strong encryption' implies an amount of computing power infeasible even for major state-level actors. (If implemented correctly.) 5.2.3.2.2 Maybe add 'overblocking' to the definitions list? For DNS, maybe distinguish between 'fake response' (incorrect IP) and 'no response' (nxdomain -- claiming that no such site exists). 5.2.3.5.1 This is an integrity issue, and integrity is not mentioned in this paragraph. (Also, this feels like it's moving beyond a 'standards' issue? I'm not sure if this is really falling within scope.) As a side note, the inclusion of XMPP around this section of the document here feels a little arbitrary -- especially the amount of the document devoted to it. 5.2.3.5.2 You might want to mention the case of Iran throttling HTTPS connections, causing users to switch to (unthrottled) HTTP to enable surveillance. I've kind of lost track of the levels of subsections, though, so that may not be appropriate here if you're focusing on p2p. (It would be elsewhere, though, as the general issue of affordances is probably worth talking about -- if people don't use the secure/rights-defending tools due to other constraints, such as a lack of usability, then they have little impact.) 6.2.10 I would say "Pseudonymity -- the ability to use a persistent identifier not linked to one's offline identity" straight away over simply 'disguise one's identity', as 'disguise' is more easily confused with anonymity. I would also include consideration that pseudonyms cannot be simply reverse engineered -- some early approaches simply took approaches such as simple hashing of IP addreses. These could then be simply reversed by generating a hash for each potential IP address and comparing it to the pseudonym. 6.2.14 I would draw a distinction between 'random degradation' and 'malicious degradation'. Many current attacks against TLS, for example, exploit TLS's ability to gracefully degrade to older cipher suites -- from a functional perspective, this is good. From a security perspective, this can be very bad. As I said, apologies for not being more thorough. Joss -- Dr. Joss Wright | Research Fellow Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford Co-Director, Oxford University Cybersecurity Doctoral Training Centre Faculty Fellow, Alan Turing Institute http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/?id=176 From nobody Fri Feb 10 14:36:34 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49B3C129CA7 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:36:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.302 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4qyNY_6wAQ-y for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:36:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA3EB129C9B for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:36:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5932DBEB3; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:36:28 +0000 (GMT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7GU9FzD46Brn; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:36:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.87.48.210] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4AC21BEAF; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:36:26 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1486766186; bh=ubYI5OODVSLpbMwXw0zZEnouby+EtyHnv6Cmk0ztOcs=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=T89ADstsh63Ild5EbFJLGA2d7uND22la6RQJMo5FquhxQNtnjhiWhBHHSzcuqEzHc YIkLNIHBRNnMKjG+aOroJrvjTrc9WvyntMwbDUsoxL99dxZ0+YIXk4luUmwZPSuTMl NXfcGR/rkOqbKjxBZo0jIo/NhxKGMEWpRSjXl9VE= To: avri@acm.org, hrpc@irtf.org References: <5ebc4c20-5ff1-1f3f-df5c-31213bee2890@acm.org> From: Stephen Farrell Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url= Message-ID: <808700d7-a9d2-cdf8-9e3e-395d6acc292c@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:36:25 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5ebc4c20-5ff1-1f3f-df5c-31213bee2890@acm.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="BddwSJGeUjkvO3ba0wPbLUSxr9dUg668l" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] 2nd Research Group Last Call for draft-irtf-hrpc-research X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:36:33 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --BddwSJGeUjkvO3ba0wPbLUSxr9dUg668l Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="ChiGKg7OUlSO6pfD4luQ9Tok3InpasUJu"; protected-headers="v1" From: Stephen Farrell To: avri@acm.org, hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <808700d7-a9d2-cdf8-9e3e-395d6acc292c@cs.tcd.ie> Subject: Re: [hrpc] 2nd Research Group Last Call for draft-irtf-hrpc-research References: <5ebc4c20-5ff1-1f3f-df5c-31213bee2890@acm.org> In-Reply-To: <5ebc4c20-5ff1-1f3f-df5c-31213bee2890@acm.org> --ChiGKg7OUlSO6pfD4luQ9Tok3InpasUJu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I flicked quickly through this but I didn't give it a full read-through. With so much change I hope someone does do that, but I don't have time right now sorry. As always (sorry:-) I have a few comments: - Abstract: I hate >1 para abstracts. It also seems wrong at this point for the document to say that it "aims to be a consensus document" - but maybe the intent was to change that to "this represents RG consensus" after Avri calls the result of the 2nd LC? (And I still do think it's a mistake to aim for that in any case, but I'm not objecting to it.) - section 4: This bit needs fixing: "if the IETF were to bake the UDHR into its protocols, countries who do not agree with that might completely withdraw from the standard setting process." Countries do not participate in the IETF's process so this makes no sense. I'd also not like s/countries/people from countries/ as that assumes all a country's citizens agree with something at once. I'd delete that argument, reducing to three arguments, which is enough. - later in section 4: "Our position is..." I'm not at all sure that's appropriate language for a document that claims to have rough consensus. I'm also not at all sure that the rest of that para does in fact represent rough consensus of the RG. My conclusion from the list discussion and from the above is that I'm supportive of this being published. That'll be better as an informational RFC, as otherwise we may waste time debating "so what's the experiment exactly" which'd be a bit pointless in this case. Cheers, S. On 09/02/17 20:37, avri doria wrote: > Hi, >=20 > As mentioned in an earlier note, many changes were made to the draft in= > response to comments made during the last last call. As these changes > were not just editorial, decided we needed another RGLC to review the > changes. >=20 > As of now starting a 2 weeks call on: >=20 > Title : Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations > Authors : Niels ten Oever > Corinne Cath > Filename : draft-irtf-hrpc-research-10.txt > Pages : 74 > Date : 2017-02-08 >=20 > The call will end on Noon 1200 UTC 24 Feb 2017, >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-hrpc-research/ >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-hrpc-research-10 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-irtf-hrpc-research-10 >=20 > For a diff to the previous RGLC version (-07) > Use: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff > and refer to drafts: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-irtf-hrpc-research-07.txt > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-hrpc-research-10.txt >=20 > Please send comments to: hrpc@irtf.org >=20 > Please forward this call to anyone you think should consider reviewing = this doc. >=20 > Thanks > Avri >=20 >=20 >=20 > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus >=20 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 --ChiGKg7OUlSO6pfD4luQ9Tok3InpasUJu-- --BddwSJGeUjkvO3ba0wPbLUSxr9dUg668l Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJYnkBpAAoJEC88hzaAX42i+QUH+wWqdi4fQdzW2ffB9S79qkRQ 6Be0NdQioxmSGwWLH0NZWIn3XYj8v3cny04UYvREuqESx1QciCjXzmKBC3emlq3f MhpNXxVPbhrfoPKviXWSFZ8+Ix06qC/+E6O+iiqnPep2WGZIdfd6PKP1MQ4lRMDx eZKMN/lavVuhpkC5H2aO8H993SOgHx5GCxCG5wHc0zE4dJHkVW0mGWnnzw6d+rsN awBY3h5M+aSQt9u69bkbcYhONWwV1t6xvQGi27ASM/FEhNzXr5/aLMLffAXNrYXT nveduA6V8qnjqmg9Mh10x/Abo8OOdynplNWsuARk2iyEUOH0U0B/OIs6Z1/G0ms= =ivaE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --BddwSJGeUjkvO3ba0wPbLUSxr9dUg668l-- From nobody Sat Feb 11 10:10:40 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@irtf.org Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B65129A3B; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:10:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "\"IETF Meeting Session Request Tool\"" To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.43.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148683663906.10932.8544152185276326596.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:10:39 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: hrpc-chairs@ietf.org, niels@article19.org, hrpc@irtf.org, irtf-chair@irtf.org Subject: [hrpc] hrpc - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 98 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:10:39 -0000 A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Niels ten Oever, a Chair of the hrpc working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Human Rights Protocol Considerations Area Name: IRTF Session Requester: Niels Oever Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 1.5 Hours Number of Attendees: 70 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: saag Second Priority: dnsop Third Priority: openpgp People who must be present: Avri Doria Niels ten Oever Resources Requested: Meetecho support in room Special Requests: --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Mon Feb 13 06:41:32 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C390E129542 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 06:41:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.421 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.421 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eaA4FMNktRlo for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 06:41:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A776F129488 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 06:41:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.104.138]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cdHok-0005NR-NM for hrpc@irtf.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:41:27 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever To: "hrpc@irtf.org" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:41:25 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wlLmoSvN0PldXqGH3iCjjutN9Dt2eaQEW" X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: b5e1a7a6a0a97f953de832680fded840 Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] hrpc session at IETF98 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:41:32 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --wlLmoSvN0PldXqGH3iCjjutN9Dt2eaQEW Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="t0wx85xmeUs6k3wI5oEOGUnuoA2QHI0ib"; protected-headers="v1" From: Niels ten Oever To: "hrpc@irtf.org" Message-ID: Subject: hrpc session at IETF98 --t0wx85xmeUs6k3wI5oEOGUnuoA2QHI0ib Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I would like to see what people are thinking about the hrpc session for Chicago. The speakers that were planned for the last session, but could not make it due to time difference are still very willing to join us. To refresh your memories, they are: - Franscesca Musiani - on Infrastructure and Human Rights https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/fmusiani https://www.linkedin.com/in/francesca-musiani-b643667 https://twitter.com/franmusiani - Sarah Spiekerman on Value Based Design https://www.wu.ac.at/ec/team/sarah-spiekermann/ who is also working on the P7000 standard on Addressing Ethical Concerns During System Design in the IEEE http://standards.ieee.org/news/2016/ieee_p7000.html both are based in Europe, and engaged towards the end of the week, so this would mean we should ask for a morning session on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, which I hope would not pose a problem with you all. Other agenda topics could be: - draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity-00 - Maybe a -00 version of a draft on freedom of association - an update (and perhaps discussion) on the status of draft-irtf-hrpc-research Do people have other points for the agenda they would like to suggest? Or speaker for the current or next session? New drafts? Discussion topics= ? Currently we have the following conflicts: dnsops, saag, openpgp and of course irtfopen. If others have other pressing conflicts, please let us know. All the best, Niels --=20 Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 --t0wx85xmeUs6k3wI5oEOGUnuoA2QHI0ib-- --wlLmoSvN0PldXqGH3iCjjutN9Dt2eaQEW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAlihxZUACgkQDtg/OkaK yLOjhxAAogkAMdNCXrmd6KYjxse5PBUmLxOz1UMURju3D6GvcSm6BSHyaumf2eT8 rVduBW5MPopVG9dAEZGjmwB5ukPc1aGWbA8kk25CK8n4RVG/y/wbgFh/xVG5vF/4 XiCq0/RDs5mEbNcHUH3TP+66by8K4E6tBqkjs6Wi57UF+mBrt1aCOgrBshmbwAdb ycg4DCltMYHWQ9uNF6+JbNTflamuWLaHofkl1FfRIVhSkMaJMAY4WyBp8REo1lRO WnCekI4vV4j8IX6bRGxqQzDpz44moBm5o8oYJg1+MMxdTm0kMnLzzhpCqLb9B7We YPVI0o+CMdtrrZe8A/ox6T9CC6MCx958nW8gNRP08slnZ8OM2uYazDqhEWaz47x9 EiF8p/tTwIBbt3IeZhYpAIWQnJJKSDcpyAQWKyJe8bdweCvxXtYFOYc7HJFKkArV VEbrLLCOXqzuuw1DAsU8QYTyek0cbXJs7UmfOAwNTYuWa/6/1mVoJCdD67KA9MAv Te7ogtuOs/UOTO97qyyso67VInsMG4gws4m7m3EyORcbJafjniBJhZtckYjfOQbh R7jj4lYfewQNEx05Zrs9qG9m0l6VR2YV3oJTVwfoV642SouoQJesg1Qs+IopO8h9 PlxBcZqsI4gpTJ3L5qG+1buW64vLGyaynZ4PwfhWhZJ0ZYWMGSw= =2g2q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wlLmoSvN0PldXqGH3iCjjutN9Dt2eaQEW-- From nobody Mon Feb 13 06:45:37 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4833129633 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 06:45:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.421 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.421 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id keRRifiJ7CNr for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 06:45:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4904C12951D for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 06:45:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.104.138]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cdHsh-00064k-JI for hrpc@irtf.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:45:32 +0100 To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <20170209213425.GL14830@lovecraft> From: Niels ten Oever Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:45:30 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170209213425.GL14830@lovecraft> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nWbFbUW3N26fAdBmhN9tbWIeNB09gkPGj" X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: 83b7c7fca54da338aa3d4d8066e35af0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Comments on "Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations" X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:45:35 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --nWbFbUW3N26fAdBmhN9tbWIeNB09gkPGj Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="wCc0TWTfIHuvTcb060kr9c3AjNdJBiaCa"; protected-headers="v1" From: Niels ten Oever To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Comments on "Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations" References: <20170209213425.GL14830@lovecraft> In-Reply-To: <20170209213425.GL14830@lovecraft> --wCc0TWTfIHuvTcb060kr9c3AjNdJBiaCa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Joss, Thanks for this. Reply inline: On 02/09/2017 10:34 PM, Joss Wright wrote: > Hello, >=20 > I just read through the "Research into Human Rights Protocol > Considerations" document. I have a few, relatively random, comments fro= m > my read-through. (Apologies here -- I didn't have time to do a really > thorough review, and there were a few points about which I was slightly= > uncomfortable or felt that the document neglected or, alternatively, > overemphasised. It seemed best not to let the perfect be the enemy of > the good, though, so am sending these comments along anyway.) >=20 > >=20 > Section 2: >=20 > * Censorship-resistance >=20 > Censorship has not yet been at this point defined -- that definition > should probably come in first.=20 >=20 =E2=80=8BWe have added the following three definitions to draft: Blocking: the practice of preventing access to resources in the aggregate {{RFC 7754}}. Both blocking and filtering can be implemented at the level of "services" (web hosting or video streaming, for example) or at the level of particular "content." {{RFC 7754}} https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7754 Censorship: technical mechanisms, that include both blocking and filtering, that certain political or private actors around the world use to block or degrade Internet traffic. For further details on the various elements of Internet censorship see {{Hall2016}} https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hall-censorship-tech-04 Filtering: the practice of preventing access to specific resources within an aggregate {{RFC 7754}}. > I also have a general problem with the political implications of 'censo= rship', > although I accept its widespread use. It might be nice to have the dist= inction > drawn between the technical terms such as 'filtering' and 'blocking', a= nd the > more normatively-loaded term "censorship"? =E2=80=8BAgreed - however, we hope that the newly added definitions based= on existing IETF drafts and documents clarify that in this particular case, censorship does not come with a normatively loaded backpack, but rather is seen as an umbrella term for filtering and blocking.=E2=80=8B >=20 > Censorship is brought in later in this section as 'internet censorship'= =2E I > would argue that you should harmonise the terms -- if you use 'internet= > censorship' and not just 'censorship' then you should also use 'interne= t > censorship resistance'.=20 =E2=80=8BWe removed the definition by Elahi, to reduce confusion and stic= k to the narrow technical definition of censorship. =E2=80=8B >=20 > I can see that this definition is partially taken from Elahi and > Goldberg, but what is this 'relevant for decision making' element? Is > suppression of, say, works of art not censorship by this definition? > (For that matter, is removal of child pornography not 'censorship'? Thi= s > is precisely why I prefer terms such as 'filtering'.) =E2=80=8Bsee above. >=20 > * Strong encryption=20 >=20 > I checked the referenced RFC, but didn't see this definition of 'a larg= e amount > of computing power'. I would argue that modern usage of 'strong encrypt= ion' > implies an amount of computing power infeasible even for major state-le= vel > actors. (If implemented correctly.) =E2=80=8BUpdated the language. It now reads: Strong encryption / cryptography Used to describe a cryptographic algorithm that would require a large amount of computational power to defeat it [RFC4949]. In the modern usage of the definition 'strong encryption' this refers to an amount of computing power current not available, not even to major state-level actors. >=20 > 5.2.3.2.2 >=20 > Maybe add 'overblocking' to the definitions list? >=20 Changed the sentence into: A notable instance of distortion occurred in Greece {{ververis}}, where a study found evidence of both of deep packet inspection to distort DNS replies, and more excessive blocking of content than was legally required or requested (also known as overblocking) > For DNS, maybe distinguish between 'fake response' (incorrect IP) and '= no > response' (nxdomain -- claiming that no such site exists). >=20 > 5.2.3.5.1 >=20 > This is an integrity issue, and integrity is not mentioned in this para= graph. > (Also, this feels like it's moving beyond a 'standards' issue? I'm not = sure if > this is really falling within scope.) >=20 > As a side note, the inclusion of XMPP around this section of the docume= nt here > feels a little arbitrary -- especially the amount of the document devot= ed to > it. >=20 This is part of the case studies is showing the relation between human rights and protocols, a combination of protocols and their implementation= s. > 5.2.3.5.2 >=20 > You might want to mention the case of Iran throttling HTTPS connections= , > causing users to switch to (unthrottled) HTTP to enable surveillance. I= 've kind > of lost track of the levels of subsections, though, so that may not be > appropriate here if you're focusing on p2p. (It would be elsewhere, tho= ugh, as > the general issue of affordances is probably worth talking about -- if = people > don't use the secure/rights-defending tools due to other constraints, s= uch as a > lack of usability, then they have little impact.) Added the following text to the analysis of HTTP and HTTPS (TLS): While this is commendable, we must not lose track of the fact that different protocols, implementations, configurations and networking paradigms can intersect such that they (can be used to) adversely impact human rights. For instance, certain countries will throttle HTTPS connections forcing users to switch to the (unthrottled) HTTP to facilitate surveillance {{Aryanetall}}. https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/iran-foci13.pdf >=20 > 6.2.10 >=20 > I would say "Pseudonymity -- the ability to use a persistent identifier= not > linked to one's offline identity" straight away over simply 'disguise o= ne's > identity', as 'disguise' is more easily confused with anonymity.=20 >=20 =E2=80=8BUpdated the definition. It now reads: Pseudonymity - the ability= to use a persistent identifier not linked to one's offline identity" straight away - is an important feature for many end-users, as it allows them different degrees of disguised identity and privacy online.=E2=80=8B > I would also include consideration that pseudonyms cannot be simply rev= erse > engineered -- some early approaches simply took approaches such as simp= le > hashing of IP addreses. These could then be simply reversed by generati= ng a > hash for each potential IP address and comparing it to the pseudonym. >=20 Update the language, it now reads: Designing a standard that exposes private information, it is important to consider ways to mitigate the obvious impacts. While pseudonyms cannot be simply reverse engineered - some early approaches simply took approaches such as simple hashing of IP addreses, these could then be simply reversed by generating a hash for each potential IP address and comparing it to the pseudonym - limiting the exposure of private information remains important. =E2=80=8B > 6.2.14 >=20 > I would draw a distinction between 'random degradation' and 'malicious > degradation'. Many current attacks against TLS, for example, exploit TL= S's > ability to gracefully degrade to older cipher suites -- from a functio= nal > perspective, this is good. From a security perspective, this can be ver= y bad. >=20 =E2=80=8BAdded two new bits to 6.2.14: Under Explanation: It is important here to draw a distinction between random degradation and malicious degradation. Many current attacks against TLS, for example, exploit TLS's ability to gracefully degrade to older cipher suites -- from a functional perspective, this is good. From a security perspective, this can be very bad.=E2=80=8B =E2=80=8BAlso added the following question: Can your protocol resist malicious degradation attempts?=E2=80=8B > >=20 > As I said, apologies for not being more thorough. =E2=80=8BNo apologies - this was very thorough and we thoroughly apprecia= te it. Best, Niels --wCc0TWTfIHuvTcb060kr9c3AjNdJBiaCa-- --nWbFbUW3N26fAdBmhN9tbWIeNB09gkPGj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAlihxooACgkQDtg/OkaK yLMqTQ//dB1eKSFTg4Dau0tQygDZnZeTSQujln2PZgCy+5JaqQt4ypPMnR1e+A60 IUYXGK5c63o/MggcJwNlRHpnOSHA3+A5OKL3+iXwVEY60gcBMIzyNM5iw5hIfYTO PRDuUgP6AcedHanq1OIi1l+5XDxK6paR6U0reP1ftQdcFzAhavatLsDLfBTRABPK 8t3JI9VjnKfM/5ImkR/QOhZcxj/5cTNDjJQVATXhgYCcu8okTNwZoqJ0vqdNdWiK Ti8qR2juXjQU/RmLJgKNhvZwiX0pCGmR6bbIiuAaJnxOxV8pyoJs4TeQYQqO9YQD cxVPz9RBMNIE9Nb0QRbrELhEpTTpCNZZMwIEZksdXiFEMcef2cIrR7UyUf+bm8eL mL0KIibTIu8eajJIB6J17olIOj29WOoEDV68kngOiQkmv/822jiuIY8UtypiySF5 BPtQnhKbzq+jS35YKIHW9oB0HzksgnsYQf2CAHZD0x5c50VWoPw1GOyi+hs2F3Ro ZAlHRyS6Z6ATbgHa6GQcTaTbKptd+V0KdZoXo2u0Tt+hIpWWJ0b9tSgk2FvwJuVY BJcl5s2x12Z1qo0/ySuQ+BtUlqRizVc1JOkr4Oqe8DAFSMnk6QNtffwyj6J8uA/+ 9gMYmnc35QVxK/jKbRSQi/q74g2P0zhWNBCUz/cDE/FKz9qIouQ= =bAVb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nWbFbUW3N26fAdBmhN9tbWIeNB09gkPGj-- From nobody Mon Feb 13 06:50:53 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E4B1294BF for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 06:50:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.421 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.421 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pZGa53UjKXR2 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 06:50:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C71412711D for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 06:50:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.104.138]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cdHxp-0006eG-Cd for hrpc@irtf.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:50:49 +0100 To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <5ebc4c20-5ff1-1f3f-df5c-31213bee2890@acm.org> <808700d7-a9d2-cdf8-9e3e-395d6acc292c@cs.tcd.ie> From: Niels ten Oever Message-ID: <2bea99b1-2346-8f03-785b-ed364890b29c@article19.org> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:50:48 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <808700d7-a9d2-cdf8-9e3e-395d6acc292c@cs.tcd.ie> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8h3UiSvKC3GDKA6JgKTAOMIU2K2qU8oh1" X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: 33d7b3eae05c5f496f9004bb2392f65d Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] 2nd Research Group Last Call for draft-irtf-hrpc-research X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:50:52 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --8h3UiSvKC3GDKA6JgKTAOMIU2K2qU8oh1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="btv82cbVFLvAHuXtW2hlw5AU5GawWUcM0"; protected-headers="v1" From: Niels ten Oever To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <2bea99b1-2346-8f03-785b-ed364890b29c@article19.org> Subject: Re: [hrpc] 2nd Research Group Last Call for draft-irtf-hrpc-research References: <5ebc4c20-5ff1-1f3f-df5c-31213bee2890@acm.org> <808700d7-a9d2-cdf8-9e3e-395d6acc292c@cs.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: <808700d7-a9d2-cdf8-9e3e-395d6acc292c@cs.tcd.ie> --btv82cbVFLvAHuXtW2hlw5AU5GawWUcM0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Stephen, On 02/10/2017 11:36 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >=20 > I flicked quickly through this but I didn't give it a > full read-through. With so much change I hope someone does > do that, but I don't have time right now sorry. As always > (sorry:-) I have a few comments: >=20 > - Abstract: >=20 > I hate >1 para abstracts.=20 Do you mean we should delete the hard return between these paras?: 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 . The rest of the document explains the background of the guidelines and how they were developed. I think it adds to readability and giving people what they need, but if you feel strongly.... The rest of the abstract is mostly boilerplate text, merging that with the above doesn't seem very useful to me. It also seems wrong at this point > for the document to say that it "aims to be a consensus > document" - but maybe the intent was to change that to > "this represents RG consensus" after Avri calls the result > of the 2nd LC?=20 Exactly >=20 > - section 4: >=20 > This bit needs fixing: "if the IETF were to bake the UDHR > into its protocols, countries who do not agree with that > might completely withdraw from the standard setting process." > Countries do not participate in the IETF's process so this > makes no sense. I'd also not like s/countries/people from > countries/ as that assumes all a country's citizens agree > with something at once. I'd delete that argument, reducing > to three arguments, which is enough. >=20 OK - removed. > - later in section 4: >=20 > "Our position is..." I'm not at all sure that's appropriate > language for a document that claims to have rough consensus. > I'm also not at all sure that the rest of that para does in > fact represent rough consensus of the RG. You think this does not represent the rough consensus of the RG ? This has been in here for quite a while, and I haven't heard many people arguing against this position: =2E.. hard-coding human rights into protocols is complicated and changes with the context. At this point is difficult to say whether hard-coding human rights into protocols is wise or feasible. Cheers, Niels >=20 > My conclusion from the list discussion and from the above > is that I'm supportive of this being published. That'll be > better as an informational RFC, as otherwise we may waste > time debating "so what's the experiment exactly" which'd > be a bit pointless in this case. >=20 > Cheers, > S. >=20 >=20 > On 09/02/17 20:37, avri doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> As mentioned in an earlier note, many changes were made to the draft i= n >> response to comments made during the last last call. As these changes >> were not just editorial, decided we needed another RGLC to review the >> changes. >> >> As of now starting a 2 weeks call on: >> >> Title : Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations >> Authors : Niels ten Oever >> Corinne Cath >> Filename : draft-irtf-hrpc-research-10.txt >> Pages : 74 >> Date : 2017-02-08 >> >> The call will end on Noon 1200 UTC 24 Feb 2017, >> >> 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-10 >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-irtf-hrpc-research-10 >> >> For a diff to the previous RGLC version (-07) >> Use: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff >> and refer to drafts: >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-irtf-hrpc-research-07.txt >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-hrpc-research-10.txt >> >> Please send comments to: hrpc@irtf.org >> >> Please forward this call to anyone you think should consider reviewing= this doc. >> >> Thanks >> Avri >> >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> _______________________________________________ >> hrpc mailing list >> hrpc@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >> >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 --btv82cbVFLvAHuXtW2hlw5AU5GawWUcM0-- --8h3UiSvKC3GDKA6JgKTAOMIU2K2qU8oh1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAlihx8gACgkQDtg/OkaK yLMHBQ//S8OObUubEWB3nSdaRmKpipASvZNciqrdRGG6dieLkd/YuoCUHxvahMY5 Zz6Sga9xoiaB6MNJgzw7ULn4VKz110SpK1WD/3CWrbPMqrYcrdzgW4OA4mBzuf2v aGQwmLMum92Iq3P2AX3u36DikgYrpzc7LFD/NK3iN5DkmCT/O0NYKMpu7s4QPAXO Ts0LIe9GCuK5tNg3Gqar9qkhVjTR4WfN2OU6XvxSGt7Kab2raNS+uF6I1KErK8qp IwEqDCkfxyuj/dPISf9F6JC+xy4Uz5u1NObk0q7HGyMjG01hasT00+rtQm538+Pg rHcAmCyVV1ueNiw8Dsx0MYWOUpy95fbsS5oRWRVybNjknluOmZlooyyuUWhtBcb1 5w+6DiL3V+BMcdwjBQXG8VquQw990KRodWeb70F1j+Uw4qwjX61H8m/dr4AkFM51 d4guvReO24vXEMtqScloFG5CGD0Y4HLv4qTKOK7oZ7Rr5NrLMah++2n7Sc+gNs6U +jOsFAlZrJ3sJtIQ0VMonssMRtHpsDKbELI/r76WtbWKXcAm293q7Dlf2Uk8Ciap z+cxlek9GsLHtw+ed6BRbKW1pADKbcroDxcx+GgayK868McG1rrRjAOEkRBdvu40 Bhv0lFelD3n69zQ+Tg9Jxk8cYBJohBQShunQsDWr7f0uPet+g8Y= =SDox -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8h3UiSvKC3GDKA6JgKTAOMIU2K2qU8oh1-- From nobody Mon Feb 13 07:32:12 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD34F1296D4 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 07:32:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id duqyZKIGEmez for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 07:32:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85F6C12965A for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 07:31:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 925B9BE5F; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:31:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zu9YA8-_ahgP; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:31:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [134.226.36.93] (bilbo.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.93]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E112ABE80; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:31:52 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1486999913; bh=ES29EwY03dCZmH5DoEQDtApeXX5ZrHrAmHbQyvyvsJY=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=pmPmQrpXVza6FDkEYOMo20LptXHY3bg879mcLLnYg/KRGSkpceisJ5QZvVETMkOo7 Ddn11+48HxsQIShfQkLd7PI4Mgk7hxAQPJq57uRD3wVQJE5s1St0lrHgHxZCNnrLcF KLmzbY1ZFoTgo18d0xnRxAbggSoPxZb/JgS4ddo8= To: Niels ten Oever , hrpc@irtf.org References: <5ebc4c20-5ff1-1f3f-df5c-31213bee2890@acm.org> <808700d7-a9d2-cdf8-9e3e-395d6acc292c@cs.tcd.ie> <2bea99b1-2346-8f03-785b-ed364890b29c@article19.org> From: Stephen Farrell Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url= Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:31:52 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2bea99b1-2346-8f03-785b-ed364890b29c@article19.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CB4IWUUOa2VeCNiVakQVvBCThaEHEUMQk" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] 2nd Research Group Last Call for draft-irtf-hrpc-research X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:32:10 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --CB4IWUUOa2VeCNiVakQVvBCThaEHEUMQk Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="O7BBCfbT2oS51c2DrDLM1BqRQkRhBjMLL"; protected-headers="v1" From: Stephen Farrell To: Niels ten Oever , hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: [hrpc] 2nd Research Group Last Call for draft-irtf-hrpc-research References: <5ebc4c20-5ff1-1f3f-df5c-31213bee2890@acm.org> <808700d7-a9d2-cdf8-9e3e-395d6acc292c@cs.tcd.ie> <2bea99b1-2346-8f03-785b-ed364890b29c@article19.org> In-Reply-To: <2bea99b1-2346-8f03-785b-ed364890b29c@article19.org> --O7BBCfbT2oS51c2DrDLM1BqRQkRhBjMLL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hiya, On 13/02/17 14:50, Niels ten Oever wrote: > Hi Stephen, >=20 > On 02/10/2017 11:36 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> >> I flicked quickly through this but I didn't give it a >> full read-through. With so much change I hope someone does >> do that, but I don't have time right now sorry. As always >> (sorry:-) I have a few comments: >> >> - Abstract: >> >> I hate >1 para abstracts.=20 >=20 > Do you mean we should delete the hard return between these paras?: Well, you could, but I meant more that I think abstracts should be a *short* one paragraph description of the content. I don't think you end up with that by merging these paragraphs. IOW, please synopsize harder:-) That said, this is just a style thing. >=20 > 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 fo= r > 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. >=20 >=20 >=20 > If you want to see how to apply this work to your own, you can directly= > go to target=3D"model-for-developing-human-rights-protocol-considerations" />= =2E > The rest of the document explains the background of the guidelines and > how they were developed. >=20 > I think it adds to readability and giving people what they need, but if= > you feel strongly.... >=20 > The rest of the abstract is mostly boilerplate text, merging that with > the above doesn't seem very useful to me. >=20 >=20 > It also seems wrong at this point >> for the document to say that it "aims to be a consensus >> document" - but maybe the intent was to change that to >> "this represents RG consensus" after Avri calls the result >> of the 2nd LC?=20 >=20 > Exactly >=20 >> >> - section 4: >> >> This bit needs fixing: "if the IETF were to bake the UDHR >> into its protocols, countries who do not agree with that >> might completely withdraw from the standard setting process." >> Countries do not participate in the IETF's process so this >> makes no sense. I'd also not like s/countries/people from >> countries/ as that assumes all a country's citizens agree >> with something at once. I'd delete that argument, reducing >> to three arguments, which is enough. >> >=20 > OK - removed. >=20 >> - later in section 4: >> >> "Our position is..." I'm not at all sure that's appropriate >> language for a document that claims to have rough consensus. >> I'm also not at all sure that the rest of that para does in >> fact represent rough consensus of the RG. >=20 > You think this does not represent the rough consensus of the RG ?=20 See below wrt the text that follows this phrase... The "Our position is..." phrase is problematic regardless. If the rest of the para does represent RG consensus then there's no need for the problematic phrase. You could delete it, or s/Our/The RG's/ and it'd be ok. If the rest of the para does not represent RG consensus then I'm not sure why the authors' divergent opinions are being presented, and if they are, it'd be better to be clearer about that position not being part of the RG consensus. And to also be as clear if there are any other similar bits of text. (And it'd probably be good to be consistently clear in how that's done too:-) > This > has been in here for quite a while, and I haven't heard many people > arguing against this position: >=20 > ... hard-coding human rights into protocols is complicated and changes > with the context. At this point is difficult to say whether hard-coding= > human rights into protocols is wise or feasible. The rest of that paragraph is much longer than that. And yes, I'm not convinced that all of the rest of that para does represent RG consensus, for example the last sentence which says: "In addition, it ensures that the impact of specific protocol on human rights is carefully considered and that concrete design decisions are documented in the protocol." I'd be surprised if that "ensures" was widely accepted. I don't buy it anyway;-) While this specific point isn't mega-important, since it's fairly obvious that we can't often "ensure" stuff like this gets done, I'm raising it as it could be indicative of two relatively new to the process authors not quite getting how RG consensus ought be reflected in a draft that claims to represent the RG consensus. (And yes, apologies for not raising this before.) Note that I'm not accusing you guys of anything here, (we have an odd process, and this is an odd document even in that odd process, and this bit of text is an even odder corner case in that pile of oddity;-) but if there are other bits of text that you think represent your opinion but not the RG consensus (or where Avri thinks that) then it'd be good to call those out in some consistent and very clear manner, or to remove the text. I haven't gone through the whole doc looking for that kind of text and I'm not sure if anyone else has. My feeble excuse for not having done that is that as I said before I think this'd have been better not aiming to be an RG consensus document:-) And I'm willing to believe you/Avri if told that you had a look and there are in fact no other bits of text like that. If this turns out to be the only bit of text like this, then I'd also wonder if it's really worth including. Cheers, S. PS: I don't recall another IRTF RG consensus draft that had bits of text representing the authors' non-consensus opinions, but maybe someone else does in which case whatever was done before could be copied. I'd be fine with us following a precedent like that. If we're setting one here though, then I'd prefer we try set a precedent that this kind of thing ought be called out clearly and consistently. >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Niels >=20 >> >> My conclusion from the list discussion and from the above >> is that I'm supportive of this being published. That'll be >> better as an informational RFC, as otherwise we may waste >> time debating "so what's the experiment exactly" which'd >> be a bit pointless in this case. >> >=20 >=20 >=20 >> Cheers, >> S. >> >> >> On 09/02/17 20:37, avri doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> As mentioned in an earlier note, many changes were made to the draft = in >>> response to comments made during the last last call. As these changes= >>> were not just editorial, decided we needed another RGLC to review the= >>> changes. >>> >>> As of now starting a 2 weeks call on: >>> >>> Title : Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations= >>> Authors : Niels ten Oever >>> Corinne Cath >>> Filename : draft-irtf-hrpc-research-10.txt >>> Pages : 74 >>> Date : 2017-02-08 >>> >>> The call will end on Noon 1200 UTC 24 Feb 2017, >>> >>> 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-10 >>> >>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-irtf-hrpc-research-10 >>> >>> For a diff to the previous RGLC version (-07) >>> Use: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff >>> and refer to drafts: >>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-irtf-hrpc-research-07.txt >>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-hrpc-research-10.txt >>> >>> Please send comments to: hrpc@irtf.org >>> >>> Please forward this call to anyone you think should consider reviewin= g this doc. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Avri >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> hrpc mailing list >>> hrpc@irtf.org >>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> hrpc mailing list >> hrpc@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >> >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 --O7BBCfbT2oS51c2DrDLM1BqRQkRhBjMLL-- --CB4IWUUOa2VeCNiVakQVvBCThaEHEUMQk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJYodFoAAoJEC88hzaAX42iMTUH/1N3J1CJpZ3hPY543GvNoW3M gvgwiu0OaEKL3gy4ILsUx6sBy3IphwXcjwT5WlVte1McNpCG2GGJ9wrxS3I6CnrK mTaMlTATg79ghxbF1bnsOvaq8uIoFMZ9mLGAKp6T2uT4Gd2R05JkQFQbnjbM8FuI s3MkwCv5qie5oLLgnJvK+R/2k4ZVglQgkEPmCbKW5h/2NO/jzOEUvkarATEaJjp4 vuQ+fWW9co4oHT/uVb9SlKY6dF7JvGZ2AyNHrV4zbJw51Jx8E+xPQOl9WTgSfV8d Hajc2X9UZjNnbfaPmFj+jmJq9gNxHvf4Fs7N6XRYLvfiabfkgTrBuGtfoq+dQkc= =smoO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CB4IWUUOa2VeCNiVakQVvBCThaEHEUMQk-- From nobody Mon Feb 13 16:28:33 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@irtf.org Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97EA0129404; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:28:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "\"IETF Meeting Session Request Tool\"" To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.43.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148703211157.22173.9141551792739035676.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:28:31 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: hrpc-chairs@ietf.org, niels@article19.org, hrpc@irtf.org, irtf-chair@irtf.org Subject: [hrpc] hrpc - Update to a Meeting Session Request for IETF 98 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 00:28:31 -0000 An update to a meeting session request has just been submitted by Niels ten Oever, a Chair of the hrpc working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Human Rights Protocol Considerations Area Name: IRTF Session Requester: Niels Oever Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 1.5 Hours Number of Attendees: 70 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: saag Second Priority: dnsop Third Priority: openpgp People who must be present: Avri Doria Niels ten Oever Resources Requested: Special Requests: Strong preference for Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday morning, due to the availability of remote presenters. --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Tue Feb 14 01:40:00 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F24EC1294C4 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 01:39:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.922 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id do1b2Y_ZQ3O8 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 01:39:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD260129735 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 01:39:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.104.138]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cdZaT-00038Y-IC for hrpc@irtf.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 10:39:54 +0100 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 10:39:49 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20170214093949.vhbnlhlixszyzrmc@mir> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="zhaerwvk3picpr42" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: 9b84bad32751a42de3aa9e7877f1ca86 Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Internationalization, Programming Languages, etc X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 09:39:59 -0000 --zhaerwvk3picpr42 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I was pointed to http://potaka.io/, a programming language in Bengal (you c= an read more about it here: https://globalvoices.org/2016/08/30/theres-fina= lly-a-programming-language-in-bengali-script-thanks-to-potaka/ ). We had qu= ite an interesting discussion about Internationalization, protocols and pro= gramming languages with Ramsey Nasser at our Buenos Aires session based on = the Arabic programming language he created. We also discussed this in point= 6.2.5 of draft-irtf-hrpc-research. Is this a topic we want to dig into dee= per, and perhaps get more IETF Internationalization people involved in the = discussion? Happy to discuss. Best, Niels --=20 Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 =20 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 --zhaerwvk3picpr42 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAlii0F0ACgkQDtg/OkaK yLP3mw/+Ip0qyPmseUscEF8hIErDDBWJw8vRydhZqyKnyMOlicUcAMTVczOYQpjg 6D1isFvsT8f+WSXGNUXm7iLy/PhTa+0v0HdJBjVk6NEDFXqdvw1+/CnC1TdINl1F zkCK28Hk9OHji2kKpGI44px8sKfFXuA20Cb/QhjO+rDpGcUS6Ffiq+QLYTmBVsbn UwPjf8uI9IzKZ356EMYtjgRQR0A9mpm6c0stdTmf83XkTcxWG9lh+A2FE6x/V13Q LGemZyA866Ir+si2ZurQfjdhfrQKFXUcT6N6ESmw2ijCUUSfRYmCI94fkjSgb6yt OAeY6NGu6zuW6rvoqYa9k1vp1oaLZ62PXMdHevTZ4EVu4I6S+j9qrzp+3ahv0XoO Bi7TlZX1cgkOALhx2oR8MWZql9JooVJAUBOhMaOSvqiahyojyliPE6WyeJXOKNj4 ApVK34OeM5zYEf/Lecnw5OJ0biNyuOUd64nz68+L18FJrZdo01eZ0tnTLnutxcfA fc8J7nWfSgBwgMcnu3pnBIY0Qayiizf9CdIeEQo6R0/DsE6m3dS7LSS8wzrVVSkn nueJSk6m0ox4d6cKvnlsq6Kliu4X+bbrHEMwurtVKamQ/oGo0Vt8o2qiIPdMhJYh fvKWbLM5Xkf/e1YzIX/jmUNfimKXp7x1NcX5J8uG/H/c+dQQ/NY= =OXsh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --zhaerwvk3picpr42-- From nobody Tue Feb 14 03:46:04 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 473811295AD for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 03:46:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.922 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ucw7534i77it for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 03:46:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBE8B127071 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 03:46:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.104.138]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cdbYT-0000s6-5w; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:45:58 +0100 To: Stephen Farrell , hrpc@irtf.org References: <5ebc4c20-5ff1-1f3f-df5c-31213bee2890@acm.org> <808700d7-a9d2-cdf8-9e3e-395d6acc292c@cs.tcd.ie> <2bea99b1-2346-8f03-785b-ed364890b29c@article19.org> From: Niels ten Oever Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:45:54 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CJigiv9c5AsnBX0d4RHVEgldISanoHRdq" X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: bda1530fae9db6c9c09b3d45241ce4d0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] 2nd Research Group Last Call for draft-irtf-hrpc-research X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:46:03 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --CJigiv9c5AsnBX0d4RHVEgldISanoHRdq Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="TwL6pLnNM4Cmj0wOsKvJ6ixBciu4cNqCL"; protected-headers="v1" From: Niels ten Oever To: Stephen Farrell , hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: [hrpc] 2nd Research Group Last Call for draft-irtf-hrpc-research References: <5ebc4c20-5ff1-1f3f-df5c-31213bee2890@acm.org> <808700d7-a9d2-cdf8-9e3e-395d6acc292c@cs.tcd.ie> <2bea99b1-2346-8f03-785b-ed364890b29c@article19.org> In-Reply-To: --TwL6pLnNM4Cmj0wOsKvJ6ixBciu4cNqCL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Stephen, On 02/13/2017 04:31 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >=20 > Hiya, >=20 > On 13/02/17 14:50, Niels ten Oever wrote: >> Hi Stephen, >> >> On 02/10/2017 11:36 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >>> >>> I flicked quickly through this but I didn't give it a >>> full read-through. With so much change I hope someone does >>> do that, but I don't have time right now sorry. As always >>> (sorry:-) I have a few comments: >>> >>> - Abstract: >>> >>> I hate >1 para abstracts.=20 >> >> Do you mean we should delete the hard return between these paras?: >=20 > Well, you could, but I meant more that I think abstracts should > be a *short* one paragraph description of the content. I don't > think you end up with that by merging these paragraphs. >=20 > IOW, please synopsize harder:-) >=20 > That said, this is just a style thing. >=20 I think you _are_ right. What about this: This document aims to propose guidelines for human rights considerations, similar to the work done on the guidelines for privacy considerations {{RFC6973}}. If you want to apply this work to your own, you can directly go to . The rest of the document explains the background of the guidelines and how they were developed. >> >> 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 f= or >> 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 directl= y >> go to > target=3D"model-for-developing-human-rights-protocol-considerations" /= >. >> The rest of the document explains the background of the guidelines and= >> how they were developed. >> >> I think it adds to readability and giving people what they need, but i= f >> you feel strongly.... >> >> The rest of the abstract is mostly boilerplate text, merging that with= >> the above doesn't seem very useful to me. >> >> >> It also seems wrong at this point >>> for the document to say that it "aims to be a consensus >>> document" - but maybe the intent was to change that to >>> "this represents RG consensus" after Avri calls the result >>> of the 2nd LC?=20 >> >> Exactly >> >>> >>> - section 4: >>> >>> This bit needs fixing: "if the IETF were to bake the UDHR >>> into its protocols, countries who do not agree with that >>> might completely withdraw from the standard setting process." >>> Countries do not participate in the IETF's process so this >>> makes no sense. I'd also not like s/countries/people from >>> countries/ as that assumes all a country's citizens agree >>> with something at once. I'd delete that argument, reducing >>> to three arguments, which is enough. >>> >> >> OK - removed. >> >>> - later in section 4: >>> >>> "Our position is..." I'm not at all sure that's appropriate >>> language for a document that claims to have rough consensus. >>> I'm also not at all sure that the rest of that para does in >>> fact represent rough consensus of the RG. >> >> You think this does not represent the rough consensus of the RG ?=20 >=20 > See below wrt the text that follows this phrase... >=20 > The "Our position is..." phrase is problematic regardless. >=20 > If the rest of the para does represent RG consensus then > there's no need for the problematic phrase. You could > delete it, or s/Our/The RG's/ and it'd be ok. The RG was meant all the time, so I indeed changed in into 'RG's'. >=20 > If the rest of the para does not represent RG consensus > then I'm not sure why the authors' divergent opinions are > being presented, and if they are, it'd be better to be > clearer about that position not being part of the RG > consensus. And to also be as clear if there are any other > similar bits of text. (And it'd probably be good to be > consistently clear in how that's done too:-) >=20 >> This >> has been in here for quite a while, and I haven't heard many people >> arguing against this position: >> >> ... hard-coding human rights into protocols is complicated and changes= >> with the context. At this point is difficult to say whether hard-codin= g >> human rights into protocols is wise or feasible. >=20 > The rest of that paragraph is much longer than that. And yes, > I'm not convinced that all of the rest of that para does > represent RG consensus, for example the last sentence which > says: >=20 > "In addition, it > ensures that the impact of specific protocol on human rights is > carefully considered and that concrete design decisions are > documented in the protocol." >=20 > I'd be surprised if that "ensures" was widely accepted. I > don't buy it anyway;-) >=20 Changed into: In addition, it contributes to the careful consideration of the impact that a specific protocol might have on human rights and that concrete design decisions are documented in the protocol. > While this specific point isn't mega-important, since it's > fairly obvious that we can't often "ensure" stuff like this > gets done, I'm raising it as it could be indicative of > two relatively new to the process authors not quite getting > how RG consensus ought be reflected in a draft that claims > to represent the RG consensus. (And yes, apologies for not > raising this before.) >=20 > Note that I'm not accusing you guys of anything here, (we > have an odd process, and this is an odd document even in > that odd process, and this bit of text is an even odder > corner case in that pile of oddity;-) but if there are > other bits of text that you think represent your opinion > but not the RG consensus (or where Avri thinks that) then > it'd be good to call those out in some consistent and > very clear manner, or to remove the text. I haven't gone > through the whole doc looking for that kind of text and > I'm not sure if anyone else has. My feeble excuse for not > having done that is that as I said before I think this'd > have been better not aiming to be an RG consensus document:-) > And I'm willing to believe you/Avri if told that you had a > look and there are in fact no other bits of text like that. >=20 > If this turns out to be the only bit of text like this, > then I'd also wonder if it's really worth including. >=20 I hope it's fixed, and I don't think there are any diverging views between RG and authors in the dock, and I also think there is no language left that implies that. But always happy to address unclarities of course. Thanks for being patient with these two relatively-new-to-the-process-authors :) Cheers, Niels > Cheers, > S. >=20 > PS: I don't recall another IRTF RG consensus draft that > had bits of text representing the authors' non-consensus > opinions, but maybe someone else does in which case whatever > was done before could be copied. I'd be fine with us following > a precedent like that. If we're setting one here though, > then I'd prefer we try set a precedent that this kind of > thing ought be called out clearly and consistently. >=20 >=20 >> >> Cheers, >> >> Niels >> >>> >>> My conclusion from the list discussion and from the above >>> is that I'm supportive of this being published. That'll be >>> better as an informational RFC, as otherwise we may waste >>> time debating "so what's the experiment exactly" which'd >>> be a bit pointless in this case. >>> >> >> >> >>> Cheers, >>> S. >>> >>> >>> On 09/02/17 20:37, avri doria wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> As mentioned in an earlier note, many changes were made to the draft= in >>>> response to comments made during the last last call. As these change= s >>>> were not just editorial, decided we needed another RGLC to review th= e >>>> changes. >>>> >>>> As of now starting a 2 weeks call on: >>>> >>>> Title : Research into Human Rights Protocol Consideration= s >>>> Authors : Niels ten Oever >>>> Corinne Cath >>>> Filename : draft-irtf-hrpc-research-10.txt >>>> Pages : 74 >>>> Date : 2017-02-08 >>>> >>>> The call will end on Noon 1200 UTC 24 Feb 2017, >>>> >>>> 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-10 >>>> >>>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-irtf-hrpc-research-10 >>>> >>>> For a diff to the previous RGLC version (-07) >>>> Use: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff >>>> and refer to drafts: >>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-irtf-hrpc-research-07.txt >>>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-hrpc-research-10.txt >>>> >>>> Please send comments to: hrpc@irtf.org >>>> >>>> Please forward this call to anyone you think should consider reviewi= ng this doc. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.= >>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> hrpc mailing list >>>> hrpc@irtf.org >>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> hrpc mailing list >>> hrpc@irtf.org >>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> hrpc mailing list >> hrpc@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >> >=20 --TwL6pLnNM4Cmj0wOsKvJ6ixBciu4cNqCL-- --CJigiv9c5AsnBX0d4RHVEgldISanoHRdq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAlii7fIACgkQDtg/OkaK yLOmJg//VqO/EnN/9dvpN+715425nHv/rxqRXaSPP0lJnf8/RnZPywerVjRnqDeG NDkFOqlPOAvEw7gbNOiAPoRfVoXOmfYsUMMKBQ+1PPvmyy5mpS/0hHNzT4YUo1AD 2WDRrK9RdrunBK4pcbwxR/t0W31daiZ5QhI/1wTw7BwbAwUnwEwKX0wSzBpNJCeY AeqtfqcMueBvxoI5ItUk4+RiBI5NOODmJC54oG9+newXtyXc2HgOmTn0ix97GBU0 nxJCn3RiqPazVYHr1R2ZmMIaWDY00hJwh3OU9ypp2I05bW+aJk7oK+Q/iEoPW5ps EYnMV+tYexQ9N0NISXg8KatiXXlIK+Dx/e5/4zvfp4/ZJDt8YNqQwdDqnOPlfdqj wfyG/afIovvCtsnsTd9UmIZXySMYOguZlA39giSP6EfHYdbPtb0eu63jdLbQ7mFP OyaMQ3EnBAQH9qU2FAVbToIXQrk/TTdOK6R4DwANZpYf1tMA7mC8q5KNGnyp60gg TcXNom4eTSVZA1qYezkGq2hqUP7ueWxc+VtjYjIIx/M9TmF2jSV+44kH4zgT60lH O4cBt8cTUYgshfw1JAvmYW1m6CWQv/Zv7vP0tKlhIW57dUiPiOp47YAY7rrHb5Fj 5bA0Wlti/lTQvNwpZWrgxh4qMK5kwsbFqs/L2YtELTybH8Upo/c= =LZhi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CJigiv9c5AsnBX0d4RHVEgldISanoHRdq-- From nobody Tue Feb 14 03:53:47 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53FFF129558 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 03:53:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.302 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gPChkTIHl6uM for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 03:53:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7CE4129440 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 03:53:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A248BEBB; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:53:41 +0000 (GMT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zK1uUMxg41_v; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:53:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.87.48.210] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8497BEAF; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:53:39 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1487073220; bh=V9EKBP7s6EpfO/I8s8Ffb4r/wkIy2lr6ee1ZbcaTOYY=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=d710xv3d+nhPzn5Zjg5MaXmn+pEl+jNyvJYpqP4/Z4xRHVN+lCP5LTnydr7GXwqsi wVC9ogJFkBVdMstGOBhmgc8MkK6HQFKxLJAabiYdh2YncHedEWyEij2TXnCTpKtp4l fnTBJNKF1IDSmXbJJ1q/j9OIPsEGyxXtIwF7Jg44= To: Niels ten Oever , hrpc@irtf.org References: <5ebc4c20-5ff1-1f3f-df5c-31213bee2890@acm.org> <808700d7-a9d2-cdf8-9e3e-395d6acc292c@cs.tcd.ie> <2bea99b1-2346-8f03-785b-ed364890b29c@article19.org> From: Stephen Farrell Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url= Message-ID: <51a65d6e-f3d2-3b08-db02-d5ea9a97a2e0@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:53:39 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0H4sMEaoiU4dFUjJCgHaIlkmlTwBjRlmi" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] 2nd Research Group Last Call for draft-irtf-hrpc-research X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:53:45 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --0H4sMEaoiU4dFUjJCgHaIlkmlTwBjRlmi Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Rmgxq8o0uFVVf6rQR8EsipXqEHjvSIBlN"; protected-headers="v1" From: Stephen Farrell To: Niels ten Oever , hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <51a65d6e-f3d2-3b08-db02-d5ea9a97a2e0@cs.tcd.ie> Subject: Re: [hrpc] 2nd Research Group Last Call for draft-irtf-hrpc-research References: <5ebc4c20-5ff1-1f3f-df5c-31213bee2890@acm.org> <808700d7-a9d2-cdf8-9e3e-395d6acc292c@cs.tcd.ie> <2bea99b1-2346-8f03-785b-ed364890b29c@article19.org> In-Reply-To: --Rmgxq8o0uFVVf6rQR8EsipXqEHjvSIBlN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hiya, Changes seem fine to me, thanks. On 14/02/17 11:45, Niels ten Oever wrote: >=20 > Thanks for being patient with these two > relatively-new-to-the-process-authors :) Heh, and contrary-wise to you for being patient with the likes of me:-) S. --Rmgxq8o0uFVVf6rQR8EsipXqEHjvSIBlN-- --0H4sMEaoiU4dFUjJCgHaIlkmlTwBjRlmi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJYou/DAAoJEC88hzaAX42i6u8H/3ZSE1vUzO+FjfLRccCG/5oY Q0bLX1DUGQ5HH9tzzzC0C+9eRskOC7wQvzA14jyalbubSZtIhNbCGgHPwOdAbH9y Jfsi7Htl+mnH8i/jBHer6ucdPLxFWrmd4OTpyl6ErQRpd+L9g/FGFYAWExavGMtG qurCCN5hYRwJjtOGSClujKQWcipXv6Qmoel/keLMp67ArviqtTtUj0gykk9XRb2o rxEgt1M8odOhVr5MHwlCmNWcje+inMS0vTi1jiyglPlqwQh4eVrE0kX36AWi6+70 KzY/C+zCPRcLXN2S/sxFJJWJMi0NxaFAVCq8lvbi3iEJTsIedmjyMaf3e+ybAy8= =19b0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0H4sMEaoiU4dFUjJCgHaIlkmlTwBjRlmi-- From nobody Fri Feb 24 04:52:33 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A534C129DBE for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 04:52:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.255 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pSzq0PKSwfXA for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 04:52:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0144.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.144]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16CCB129DBC for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 04:52:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F075AC211B for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:52:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6176726940646F7269612E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 2, -8.5, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, avri@acm.org, :, RULES_HIT:41:355:379:599:800:854:967:973:988:989:1042:1260:1261:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1381:1437:1513:1515:1516:1518:1521:1534:1542:1593:1594:1683:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:1801:1963:2198:2199:2393:2525:2553:2568:2630:2682:2685:2693:2859:2911:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3354:3673:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4184:4250:4321:4362:4425:4605:4860:5007:6117:6119:7652:7903:8660:8985:9010:9025:9121:10009:10400:10848:11232:11233:11658:11914:12043:12050:12109:12114:12291:12379:12438:12683:12740:12895:13018:13019:13071:13141:13148:13161:13229:13230:13846:14096:14097:14180:14181:14721:14819:21060:21080:21212:21324:21366:21433:21451:30022:30046:30054:30060:30083:30090:30091, 0, RBL:none, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, DomainCache:0, MSF:not bulk, SPF:fp, MSBL:0, DNSBL:none, Custom_rules:0:1:0, LFtime:2, LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: offer92_6cec82db8884b X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3405 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [64.120.53.43]) (Authenticated sender: avri@doria.org) by omf01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:52:28 +0000 (UTC) References: <5ebc4c20-5ff1-1f3f-df5c-31213bee2890@acm.org> To: hrpc@irtf.org From: avri doria Message-ID: <5c5a8353-7cda-8404-6869-22d9eff397eb@acm.org> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 07:52:27 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5ebc4c20-5ff1-1f3f-df5c-31213bee2890@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 170224-0, 02/24/2017), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] 2nd Research Group Last Call for draft-irtf-hrpc-research X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: avri@acm.org List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:52:31 -0000 Hi, Well > Noon 1200 UTC 24 Feb 2017 has come and gone. There were a few comments, but they seem to have been resolved. I have asked Niels to hold off releasing the modified version until the last call ended. I would like to ask him to wait until tomorrow just in case there are any last comments that are straggling in. But the last call is essentially ended. Thanks all for participating in this call. Next week I will work on the required steps in moving this forward to the IRSG &c. as a Research Group consensus doc, unless there are objections. If there are any such objections, please let the list know and please be specific about the problem and about how it should be fixed. Thanks avri On 09-Feb-17 15:37, avri doria wrote: > Hi, > > As mentioned in an earlier note, many changes were made to the draft in > response to comments made during the last last call. As these changes > were not just editorial, decided we needed another RGLC to review the > changes. > > As of now starting a 2 weeks call on: > > Title : Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations > Authors : Niels ten Oever > Corinne Cath > Filename : draft-irtf-hrpc-research-10.txt > Pages : 74 > Date : 2017-02-08 > > The call will end on Noon 1200 UTC 24 Feb 2017, > > 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-10 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-irtf-hrpc-research-10 > > For a diff to the previous RGLC version (-07) > Use: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff > and refer to drafts: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-irtf-hrpc-research-07.txt > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-hrpc-research-10.txt > > Please send comments to: hrpc@irtf.org > > Please forward this call to anyone you think should consider reviewing th= is doc. > > Thanks > Avri > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From nobody Fri Feb 24 05:11:40 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F01921296CD for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:11:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.302 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sidn.nl Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0ixbe0_yt60a for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:11:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from arn2-kamx.sidn.nl (kamx.sidn.nl [IPv6:2a00:d78:0:147:94:198:152:69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3F6B129579 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:11:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; d=sidn.nl; s=sidn-nl; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip:x-clientproxiedby; bh=8C6YfAzsvryQDKsbzHZbB9AbIi/n93s6vIzOs3MVK4o=; b=bpZr69Fo+so5cFUq67bku61exuBzS1BFwLjISSZPmbsevX3SnVQ4mhNeRdzJ3/rP+0KHir0kHA+cw5/tynwV+S8FjOaSzmSjXd/ZElYrd4txMHJ91hDNFmnC8+GgzeactyIzBZI4dBOAo54oG+TlCZ8IEtJP/VHN+eC4UUZB1gJuSRFrnPFY9hPlRO/JWzzqgr0QoKUvFaNO/lbWuYUCEITLCpdgN+nXMyo/IXtRyqyWV+id/dMZSkCdi4n81junG6kp61kOr7CWUdL3DHDDf4iWorzbfEMqnFij0k4MfiKN9w3/QSvUB8/QW0ZOKndUHaVXb0Uvnt9HNVNs8SNVXQ== Received: from ka-mbx01.SIDN.local ([192.168.2.177]) by arn2-kamx.sidn.nl with ESMTP id v1ODBaGh026749-v1ODBaGj026749 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=CAFAIL) for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:11:36 +0100 Received: from [94.198.159.134] (94.198.159.134) by ka-mbx01.SIDN.local (192.168.2.177) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1130.7; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:11:35 +0100 To: References: From: "Giovane C. M. Moura" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:11:35 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [94.198.159.134] X-ClientProxiedBy: ka-hubcasn02.SIDN.local (192.168.2.172) To ka-mbx01.SIDN.local (192.168.2.177) X-FEAS-SPF: 2 / 2, ip=94.198.159.134, helo=, mailFrom=giovane.moura@sidn.nl, headerFrom=giovane.moura@sidn.nl Authentication-Results: arn2-kamx.sidn.nl; spf=pass (sidn.nl: domain of giovane.moura@sidn.nl designates 94.198.159.134 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=giovane.moura@sidn.nl Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] hrpc session at IETF98 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:11:40 -0000 Hi Niels, > Do people have other points for the agenda they would like to suggest? > Or speaker for the current or next session? New drafts? Discussion topics? We have a report that may be in the interest of the WG. We show how the hosting industry has reacted to efforts of the community/industry to make encryption easier. We show that once costs and complexity are removed, big players are prone to deploy, in bulk, encryption across large number of sites, enabling encryption in sites and domains that would otherwise be left behind. The lessons learned can be also be generalized to other security-related issues. (I have also submitted this to MAPRG,but the agenda is still being defined). Title: No domain left behind: is Let's Encrypt democratizing encryption? Full paper at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.03005 PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.03005v1 Summary: The 2013 National Security Agency revelations of pervasive monitoring have lead to an "encryption rush" across the computer and Internet industry. To push back against massive surveillance and protect users privacy, vendors, hosting and cloud providers have widely deployed encryption on their hardware, communication links, and applications. As a consequence, the most of web traffic nowadays is encrypted. However, there is still a significant part of Internet traffic that is not encrypted. It has been argued that both costs and complexity associated with obtaining and deploying X.509 certificates are major barriers for widespread encryption, since these certificates are required to established encrypted connections. To address these issues, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Mozilla Foundation, and the University of Michigan have set up Let's Encrypt (LE), a certificate authority that provides both free X.509 certificates and software that automates the deployment of these certificates. In this paper, we investigate if LE has been successful in democratizing encryption: we analyze certificate issuance in the first year of LE and show from various perspectives that LE adoption has an upward trend and it is in fact being successful in covering the lower-cost end of the hosting market. /giovane From nobody Fri Feb 24 05:34:28 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3713129713 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:34:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.255 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ToidiZ4rZLaY for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:34:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0123.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.123]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5761E1296FD for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:34:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0541912BA13 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:34:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6176726940646F7269612E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 2, -8.5, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, avri@acm.org, :, RULES_HIT:41:355:379:599:800:854:967:973:988:989:1042:1260:1261:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1381:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1543:1593:1594:1683:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:1801:1963:2198:2199:2393:2525:2553:2568:2632:2682:2685:2693:2859:2911:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3355:3673:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4184:4250:4321:4425:4605:4860:5007:6117:6119:7652:7903:8660:8985:9010:9025:10009:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12043:12050:12109:12114:12291:12379:12438:12663:12683:12740:12760:12895:12926:13019:13071:13141:13148:13230:13846:14096:14097:14180:14181:14721:14819:21060:21080:21212:21324:21366:21433:21451:30022:30046:30054:30060:30070:30083:30090:30091, 0, RBL:none, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, DomainCache:0, MSF:not bulk, SPF:fp, MSBL:0, DNSBL:none, Custom_rules:0:1:0, LFtime:2, LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: tree31_2639e0ba36b2e X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3985 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [64.120.53.43]) (Authenticated sender: avri@doria.org) by omf06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:34:22 +0000 (UTC) References: <5ebc4c20-5ff1-1f3f-df5c-31213bee2890@acm.org> <5c5a8353-7cda-8404-6869-22d9eff397eb@acm.org> To: hrpc@irtf.org From: avri doria Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 08:34:21 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5c5a8353-7cda-8404-6869-22d9eff397eb@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 170224-0, 02/24/2017), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] 2nd Research Group Last Call for draft-irtf-hrpc-research X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: avri@acm.org List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:34:27 -0000 Hi, Also it is obvious that I am the one in the rough on Informational vs experimental, so not recommending any change in that regard. avri On 24-Feb-17 07:52, avri doria wrote: > Hi, > > Well > >> Noon 1200 UTC 24 Feb 2017 > has come and gone. > > There were a few comments, but they seem to have been resolved. I have > asked Niels to hold off releasing the modified version until the last > call ended. I would like to ask him to wait until tomorrow just in case > there are any last comments that are straggling in. > > But the last call is essentially ended. > > Thanks all for participating in this call. > > Next week I will work on the required steps in moving this forward to > the IRSG &c. as a Research Group consensus doc, unless there are > objections. If there are any such objections, please let the list know > and please be specific about the problem and about how it should be fixed. > > Thanks > > avri > > > > > On 09-Feb-17 15:37, avri doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> As mentioned in an earlier note, many changes were made to the draft in >> response to comments made during the last last call. As these changes >> were not just editorial, decided we needed another RGLC to review the >> changes. >> >> As of now starting a 2 weeks call on: >> >> Title : Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations >> Authors : Niels ten Oever >> Corinne Cath >> Filename : draft-irtf-hrpc-research-10.txt >> Pages : 74 >> Date : 2017-02-08 >> >> The call will end on Noon 1200 UTC 24 Feb 2017, >> >> 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-10 >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-hrpc-research-10 >> >> For a diff to the previous RGLC version (-07) >> Use: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff >> and refer to drafts: >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-irtf-hrpc-research-07.txt >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-hrpc-research-10.txt >> >> Please send comments to: hrpc@irtf.org >> >> Please forward this call to anyone you think should consider reviewing this doc. >> >> Thanks >> Avri >> >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> _______________________________________________ >> hrpc mailing list >> hrpc@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >> > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From nobody Fri Feb 24 07:17:15 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB336129DF4 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 07:17:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3-rqn-ZVZHD9 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 07:17:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B9D2129DED for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 07:17:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.104.138]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1chHcI-0000rK-7o for hrpc@irtf.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:17:07 +0100 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:17:02 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20170224151702.73fl646y5xer5dfg@mir> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7i52ws4ickvwtrju" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: bbdeaaa4d227adae8d620e69c05793d6 Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Rethinking Privacy Online and Human Rights: The Internet's Standardisation Bodies as the Guardians of Privacy Online in the Face of Mass Surveillance X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:17:14 -0000 --7i52ws4ickvwtrju Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This might of interest to the RG: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=3D2911978 Abstract There is a growing literature revolving around the role of non-State actors= in the international law-making process. The starting point of this articl= e is that although informal international law-making may not be legally bin= ding, it would be unwise to dismiss it as legally irrelevant. Informal law-= making can be relevant with respect to conceptualising and applying existin= g law, as well as guiding future regulation. The present discussion is plac= ed in the context of cyberspace and, more specifically, the Internet standa= rdisation bodies=E2=80=99 informal law-making functions when creating Inter= net protocols by setting Internet standards. The article addresses the legi= timacy and the ongoing work of the Internet Advisory Board and Internet Eng= ineering Task Force in setting Internet standards with the aim to protect I= nternet users from mass surveillance and serious threats to privacy online.= The article makes two main arguments. First, the effective protection of o= nline privacy cannot be understood only in terms of compliance with legal f= rameworks but =E2=80=93 in practice =E2=80=93 that also needs to be secured= through technological means. Second, in the area of online privacy informa= l law-making and international law converge in a distinctive way. Internet = standards should not necessarily be seen as =E2=80=9Cliving a parallel life= =E2=80=9D to law or as displacing or merely complementing the law. Technica= l standards and international law can actively inform one another and conve= rge in their application. The analysis explores the implications of the Int= ernet=E2=80=99s technical features to policy-making and legal reasoning by = discussing State and judicial practice. The article demonstrates how the te= chnical perspective on privacy informs and enriches the manner in which the= legal advisor argues about privacy, the legislator articulates the interes= ts at stake and the judge and practitioner interpret and apply internationa= l human rights law.=20 Best, Niels --=20 Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 =20 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 --7i52ws4ickvwtrju Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAliwTm4ACgkQDtg/OkaK yLM7CA/+PzeYqMQxInn8Y1Xd3avQGbgbmVnCKyqSsNuBxaWbpPWILpOFXJQeOdNB r3wjfvZS9QWxOA4IoCtEPPushf77PjrI9Fvl+Z2SJ+c7uykFcubhtJ4ytd4bEjFp KtozSkUGgoBnJhvSJJLDXJMN6otBhibT8qRBjpvxUHTxxA4s0uKG6S8I6ifll2nK BK1r25/Xqyo8AT9W/pezXaYAPx2XT3O96mo82D2+dT7lWmk2Q0dr4HDT1FKuYpfY hA5GSVaSPXd2pZJxJWSYvTNMdy3XrBHxgHK85i8MKuSbYYbnIucilI/eVsrIN9zF 8RkI0ZC7TiZiSzDgjPU63RJ15jew7642kaj1/a/ciFLnwvXN7k3UfYE15gGSdp46 8RASHJSss/ez9rgS4KQ7/wyNau44v39ttnzAQNng29vd45QfI7NvXkbc9+HFnK1Q ExZiEKvrS9KUO2l5kQUNUwtl/Q6gWW/xfEacWeoIx5FR9BWDQML6P6TZn40VCupH RMcwhDMhHpaM8AgB7sUnQ31k1kb82YRQBNrAO/1uk/mhdyA1p9lAUgKqJDxrNeun aOUPfzyDKyn9XjWNTi6A9bVSKNuyB/tgeEytBO+uhzrL7ogXNNZ8m22qvf/6Tkcq oamUOlJi9XdtZwKLq6lY4MBRR20RhsWfAZlkXazNtdS/WzCJlIo= =zHbR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7i52ws4ickvwtrju-- From nobody Sat Feb 25 02:46:11 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@irtf.org Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B99B7129572; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 02:46:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.46.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148801956975.917.9203617645792531387.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 02:46:09 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Subject: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-research-11.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:46:09 -0000 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-11.txt Pages : 75 Date : 2017-02-25 Abstract: This document aims to propose guidelines for human rights considerations, similar to the work done on the guidelines for privacy considerations [RFC6973]. If you want 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 is a consensus document of the Human Rights Protocol Consideration Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Discussion of this draft at: hrpc@irtf.org // 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-11 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-hrpc-research-11 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 nobody Mon Feb 27 07:06:05 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BBA112A0B2 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 07:06:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xPgLXYw0ABJ0 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 07:06:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD8F312A0B0 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 07:06:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.104.138]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ciMsB-0004Qu-7K for hrpc@irtf.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 16:05:59 +0100 To: hrpc@irtf.org References: From: Niels ten Oever Message-ID: <525b38d4-ede7-1a4a-92ab-31f93db90ad6@article19.org> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 16:05:58 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="be4ATvPMPviv3hSwF7JeNtii4oeqLPDNa" X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: 6e23ea5b143b5fdf6b2724ffc44cc2a7 Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] proposed agenda hrpc session at IETF98 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 15:06:04 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --be4ATvPMPviv3hSwF7JeNtii4oeqLPDNa Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="inEupl4afaeQdVAqntaEJ9Rifrj0VXix3"; protected-headers="v1" From: Niels ten Oever To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <525b38d4-ede7-1a4a-92ab-31f93db90ad6@article19.org> Subject: proposed agenda hrpc session at IETF98 References: In-Reply-To: --inEupl4afaeQdVAqntaEJ9Rifrj0VXix3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, We were looking at the agenda for the Chicago meeting and found that the work of Giovane and Adamantia might actually fit really well together, so the idea is to have a meeting with four presentations as well as the discussion of two -00 drafts. Please find the proposed agenda underneath. All your comments and/or suggestions are very much welcomed. Especially if you want to bring up other drafts. Human Rights Protocols Considerations (hrpc) research group sessions at #IETF98 13:00 - 14:30 CDT, March 28 2017 - Beginning (5 min) Jabber scribe, note takers Agenda Bashing Notewell Introduction - Status of research group & documents (2 min) - Context of research (2 mins) - Presentation + Q&A - Francesca Musiani on Distributed Architectures and Rights (15 mins) - Presentation + Q&A - John Havens on: - The IEEE Global Initiative for Ethical Considerations in AI & AS - P7000 - Model Process for Addressing Ethical Concerns During System Design (15 mins) - Presentation + Q&A - Giovane Moura on 'No domain left behind: is Let's Encrypt democratizing encryption?' (15 mins) - https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.03005 - Presentation + Q&A - Adamantia Rachovitsa on 'Rethinking Privacy Online and Human Rights: The Internet's Standardisation Bodies as the Guardians of Privacy Online in the Face of Mass Surveillance' (15 mins) - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=3D2911978 - Discussion of draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity-00 (5 mins) - Discussion of draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-00 (5 mins) - Update (and perhaps discussion) on the status of draft-irtf-hrpc-research (5 mins) - Open discussion other drafts, papers, ideas (5 mins) - Next steps (5 min) - AOB https://github.com/nllz/IRTF-HRPC/blob/master/Agenda%20hrpc%20IETF98.txt Cheers, Niels Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 --inEupl4afaeQdVAqntaEJ9Rifrj0VXix3-- --be4ATvPMPviv3hSwF7JeNtii4oeqLPDNa Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAli0QFYACgkQDtg/OkaK yLPBZw//alfImY3r4oDW5AZDJVt7ObbwyK3Dir3z924BQByjoenBuJ0kq6ORo8Rw kGuNmRMwWkHqIs1PFDJNtZvoNvnVBU/efspo4DhudXHZrHE54yTqH+W79gxhvtqP WVNof95AUaI/z+eirYHxj8oZDhnByN29zi9VteISwy2tusC11plqbSRp4V5HxMKc 9cNJ5dS2Z0cxA+uW4SMMgDQUXG4+s49++TblvwW+X2hKQfqBLv8jLdACoxkWqMSo VphJ0+UtMeNF+mUaAn2EVT02+fyRifdbdZmVre0b2QEP2+dNB+IUHfUjJlm/egiy XvHh8KLf5qhQueNbPYlGSoH/dfAlBry0Kbar0vTNKcPpy5bqE1WK477DMIEA92tv SzFbluit16zty78gzV7xlc1DkdoCqKIN6jX+6DzxAj7C6jreT4MGXo+bo+vDEN5f f+qJLVjEBIrLnzPjsZnRSXMk1ttSBMMfy0qwMhd9UZXrS2QsW4adVL+iwXGq8bud +CqWis3LPzCMrnL0SODa8iCXR1KhKrZfw0QZERAloOHhfLyRJ1tQUHom9TjjG7nI NgneXHtAaOD90/t8Wu3zjJba1Eaa0UMwvtpHnkezZJy89wP6aIBZTXJ1paiwzYRs AVhnFTpwNOODwqjfLfRKQlwMVkPWsZmiIDVnHrMtLDzMoB7qdtg= =m7uM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --be4ATvPMPviv3hSwF7JeNtii4oeqLPDNa--