Subject: [hrpc] 2nd Research Group Last Call for draft-irtf-hrpc-research

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 15:37:30 -0500

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: [email-masked]

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: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:36:25 +0000

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:
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:50:48 +0100

Hi Stephen,

On 02/10/2017 11:36 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> I hate >1 para abstracts. 

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 <xref
target="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 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
> of the 2nd LC? 

Exactly

> to three arguments, which is enough.

OK - removed.

> 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:

... 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

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:31:52 +0000

Hiya,

> 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.

> You think this does not represent the rough consensus of the RG ? 

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

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.

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:45:54 +0100

Hi Stephen,

> That said, this is just a style thing.

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 <xref
target="model-for-developing-human-rights-protocol-considerations" />.
The rest of the document explains the background of the guidelines and
how they were developed.

> 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'.

> I'd be surprised if that "ensures" was widely accepted. I

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.

> then I'd also wonder if it's really worth including.

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

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:53:39 +0000

Hiya,

Changes seem fine to me, thanks.

> relatively-new-to-the-process-authors :)

Heh, and contrary-wise to you for being patient
with the likes of me:-)

S.

---

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 07:52:27 -0500

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

---

---

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 08:34:21 -0500

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

---