Subject: [hrpc] HRPC, next

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:59:21 +0100

As of today, the HRPC research group does not have any adopted
document <https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/hrpc/documents/>

IMHO, this raises the issue of how (and if) we want to continue. There
are several drafts proposed but not adopted
(<https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/hrpc/documents/>, but it does not
show the many 451-related drafts). I think we should not follow the
example of DNSOP, that adopts a lot of documents, and then cannot work
on all of them. I believe it is important to have clear goals even if,
as a research group and not a working group, we don't have formal
milestones.

I suggest to work on three documents at most, and I suggest there are:

* draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines because RFC 8280 is too heavy for the
typical RFC author and we need something more practical to show to the
IETF working groups, to fulfill "To increase the awareness in [...]
the technical community on the importance of the technical workings of
the Internet and its impact on human rights"

* draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity because it is an important topic which
has not received a global treatment at the IETF
 	
* draft-451-imp-report because it is practical work that should be
documented

This means that draft-tenoever-hrpc-political,
draft-tenoever-hrpc-association and draft-451-new-protocol-elements,
while important and useful, would be better as individual work.

Advices?

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 11:12:11 +0100

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:59:21AM +0100,
 Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]> wrote 

> the Internet and its impact on human rights"

I forgot to add that, in that case, draft-manyfolks-hrcrfc7725 could
be a section of the RFC, showing a good example of HR analysis.

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:16:03 +0100

Hi Stephane,

(Taking off co-chair hat, putting on co-author hat). I agree we should have some documents to work on. Avri suggested we should take it to the list, so here we go. I think we should adopt:

- draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines and keep documenting implementations of the guidelines in RFC8280 such as the work on OAuth and draft-manyfolks-hrcrfc7725 so we can fold them in as examples.

- draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity (and probably rename it draft-bortmeyer-hrpc-anonymity, or rather simply adopt it and then it become draft-irtf-hrpc-anonymity)

- draft-tenoever-hrpc-association this draft has been widely discussed on list and in session, and Stephen Farrel also indicated support for adoption.

and whereas I think the RFC 7725 related work is very useful, I think it's home should be in the HTTP WG, or as individual contribution.

Looking forward to discuss.

Best,

Niels

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:59:21AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

-- 

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

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

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 13:27:35 +0000

FWIW, without having chatted with him, I concur with Niels'
take here. Even if the 451 stuff doesn't end up in httpbis,
I think that ought be the first place to go to see if the
wg do want to adopt.

S.

On 21/11/17 13:16, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> - draft-tenoever-hrpc-association this draft has been widely discussed on list and in session, and Stephen Farrel also indicated support for adoption.Assignment5 - We all like Fridays
>

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:28:40 +0100

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 02:16:03PM +0100,
 Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]> wrote 

> Looking forward to discuss.

Also, it is important to know, not only who thinks this ou that draft
is useful (IMHO, all of them are) but also who will actually work on
it (review, send patches, etc).

"Talk is cheap" :-{

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 11:29:25 -0800

> On Nov 21, 2017, at 5:27 AM, Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Even if the 451 stuff doesn't end up in httpbis,

451 is a return code in HTTP. I don't see anyplace else it could go than httpbis. It sounds like taking it into a working group would be an opportunity to add some variation on proof of origin, and a sub-code for "we think this might be a vector for malware" as opposed to "we are in possession of a take-down order."