Re: [HR-rt] Fwd: Notes from human rights review team november 4th IETF 103 - quick question
Mallory Knodel <mallory@article19.org> Mon, 05 November 2018 07:06 UTC
Return-Path: <mallory@article19.org>
X-Original-To: hr-rt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hr-rt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36A1B12EB11 for <hr-rt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 23:06:37 -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, 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 4bxglpDb8A8Z for <hr-rt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 23:06:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.89]) (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 61ABF1271FF for <hr-rt@irtf.org>; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 23:06:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <mallory@article19.org>) id 1gJYy0-0004P1-Kb for hr-rt@irtf.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 08:06:33 +0100
To: hr-rt@irtf.org
References: <CAD499eJ7_j8zE1NYmYYHyt5HkDMYy-M8P8gBGgKD9ccGyePkyg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD499eLxLPgN0YCJR1e1Mvi18By6hR+893N+myn-wdmf2nGu-A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mallory Knodel <mallory@article19.org>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=mallory@article19.org; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsBNBEx0TWcBCAC8sirY3nlDnRwY6XWmsvZtM9kmEK6H8no3ZuQ723PKwHOddw1nOykh0in/ /QGRmwtyVzsfLh6/94UUZTn10oo+xGAfw2gf1on5IJTIiphykk732PNnUakVGWwHNKQquTVc kLrydUaFVMb89BAXqExBKlMg2ciEjzbYMCs3I/qZAZ0Wr5nF3RQS8O78elTNAgWTZ98yKTZV DlRoDpnvbfwtIPqnISoSjDEvEUBdpykvS3jHqlR1f6Mx6Xs97S5CORaer/0qTcDm0PAb1Z9l IhMsFl05tNt2FpgS4/RN8NyLasAQNOlScpTJbAfRuyyvRm1N8GLIL1KX+YYeLyqzhdhZABEB AAHNJU1hbGxvcnkgS25vZGVsIDxtYWxsb3J5QG1heWZpcnN0Lm9yZz7CwJgEEwECAEICGwMG CwkIBwMCBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAhkBFiEE4+tj4GWjskC82bBxDDKicb08x4AFAlqo 9WUFCRAV234ACgkQDDKicb08x4DklAf+ODKRmP6C2MnBz6vL8N8l3vZJUqoRcYXTn3uTpT05 Wou87ZIZ/P/OV2/uOMKkczLQQydj5S8PxbLTeg+U5f/63hdy99ON+K2b4izg7Qasdl1SqXTH q1pmhbrcbLbVKDJ345fdEg7RuMnv4gd3EaT/yQa99zHy8JHaBKaPEUQAa65HTt2Sy2c6L6BA aMZx1TOZ9/cZ7L1gJyytJbEyvg/JLOatJEI4rewUWU2TMSGJijwjAUBagwDPWyxpz+vXdKsD tqRTpY4xvXaeUQo0QXf0c5j1Gcglzv7ywZcyz1MGD1aLS9/CqeB3I4EMbvH/33LS3jNkfKbV XOTSjmo7l22CNc7ATQRMdE1nAQgA4mpP2LjFuAW2li9FPbDYOMzt0MtThXsnvHyY0fDv8FlU qnKgPrMY80VHntnxwqepFS3ncunVX4ipq+fadta+LHpTnbJSmlphBrc9qGJxqcjwf4yo35Xh OXCJFwnaoAwIX237lXRe4Xh6X4VMuJt8jiZdvgpbk/whvQH2grcq8KjCcy1iuL5pBl8ZwYG/ dphitFhQdqEcnc/krIqG4KQgKiUi3K/GR0OeEmw/cscWD7/CLEo7eHiaGQhSOyDQbM+Iu2o/ 6uMXMUPsYlMMqgmVL68zMacO3PE17jx0rQ8oZ7CpBY8YZWOWrzXrtFT8JO9guuCPsvd4KT6y 97y9LRJlPQARAQABwsB8BBgBAgAmAhsMFiEE4+tj4GWjskC82bBxDDKicb08x4AFAlqo9WYF CRAV238ACgkQDDKicb08x4DU4QgAmlyBlFhfU0jpkbyD3HQ+3CJqWdBT422pVIrj3qNT2ehy fWO66Muidmd4Y279uV3p3TQEJOQvnV7FVAC9+bI7AdBy00BAjHgJ5eSQZxKTXUoeeBAsTZHN /HaHewjYWHMvCuuzir/Wt3A6Cehh8gp9I/Vg+oL3dTldVqqgZLgnA83bT/R8fI/e85LDlpdx KJ0+uy/grg3AbH7LUUrmMIC2iO8mQWYuNlizsUZLFvJhCAU2c5l8B5mv2BoWFhL+l7mmNcdF bwBFXon7Ea1jkCnbWVxtXkPYkcuWuMSTJswn9HhZVJWjUonKqUZKAb9PxRzC9crZ+X14tQT3 iJt2a4ZM4w==
Message-ID: <0472f8fe-4353-182c-4070-224c4f476900@article19.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 14:06:27 +0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAD499eLxLPgN0YCJR1e1Mvi18By6hR+893N+myn-wdmf2nGu-A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net
X-Scan-Signature: 028245575ea82c532dbb94a201c00fd0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hr-rt/TAWZGdUin6MzEcLP4mLzAeAr-ss>
Subject: Re: [HR-rt] Fwd: Notes from human rights review team november 4th IETF 103 - quick question
X-BeenThere: hr-rt@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Human Rights Protocol Considerations Review Team <hr-rt.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/hr-rt>, <mailto:hr-rt-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hr-rt/>
List-Post: <mailto:hr-rt@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hr-rt-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hr-rt>, <mailto:hr-rt-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 07:06:37 -0000
Thanks Corinne, Another suggestion that's come later is to make the reviews more findable. We could: * Link to the reviews uploaded to gitlab from hrpc.io * Publish blogs on each review in hrpc.io * Something else. Keen to find a way forward and operationalise this. -Mallory On 05/11/2018 12:59, Corinne Cath wrote: > Dear all, > > Please find below my notesof our meeting yesterday. They're quite long > but so was the meeting. > > Let me know if I missed anything. I also added them in a doc below. > > Best, > > Corinne > > > *Notes Human rights review team 4 November * > > /Present: Niels, Mallory, Shivan, Juliana, Gurshabad, Corinne / > > > > _Agenda:_ > > /Reviews/ > > /Lessons learned/ > > /Guidelines draft updates (new version)/ > > /Gitlab/ > > /Reviews as rubberstamps (legitimacy of what we are doing?)/ > > > > /Reviews:/ > > Reviews done currently: > > 1) Marnu > > 2) Meeting venue > > 3) Suit > > 4) Quic > > 5) Ipwave > > 6) Regex > > > Upcoming reviews: > > 1) captive ports > > 2) doh/dot > > 3) WebRTC and MDNS > > > > Question: How expanded do we make these reviews? NTo will do DoH/DoT in > one, ESNI is a different discussion. Maybe we take the information from > the DoH/DoT and turn it in an advocacy paper? > > > > Question: Why review an RFC? Because it seems that it would be useful > to apply our thumb on the scale. The DoH/DoT discussion is not yet > resolved. > > > > Question: Should we turn reviews into RFCs? Its dependent on the > consensus in the group. > > If we turn the reviews into RFCs that might also signal legitimacy for a > potential issue paper. > > > > Discussion: what it is the best strategy for doing advocacy at the IETF: > issue paper or formal review. It’s easier to convince people with > reviews than with an issue paper. But an issue paper might be relevant > to do for the wider community. And/and approach. > > > > Discussion: the audience for the reviews is a reoccurring topic of > debate in our meeting. > > > > Shivan mentions WebRTC and MDNS concerns: Mostly the draft is about > privacy now but might have association and accessibility concerns. > Right now, he has comments, unclear if it’s a good fit for a formal review. > > > > /Lessons learnt:/ > > > > ·With big and influential drafts, the interview/inductive/ethnographic > approach works well. > > · Gurshabad approach worked well (putting RFC 8280 next to the draft > and match the different questions to different parts of the draft). See > here for his approach: https://pad.riseup.net/p/fsEgWAHneHCS-keep > > > > /Guidelines draft updates (new version):/ > > 1) Are people engaging with it? > > 2) Are people still updating it? > > 3) Where is it going? > > > > There are some changes to the guidelines – people who do human rights > reviews should be updating the RFC 8280. When it was written RFC 8280 > was all fiction and speculative, it was done without doing any reviews. > > > > What is the projection for where this is going and how we frame it for > people? > > > > Gurshabad suggested: > > - Mentioning that we do other stuff besides protocols > > - The preferable answers should be yes (and) to the questions (up for > discussion) > > - Guidelines could have an appendix with different review examples. > > > > We should consider updating the guidelines with: > > - NTo approach > > - Gurshabad approach > > - Amelia approach > > > > Discussion: should we consider adding a “green consideration” for the > environmental impacts of a protocol? > > > > We can start thinking about new frames and flavors to bring in for > reviews, like we did with feminism: > > - UNGP > > - SDGs > > - Etc. > > > /Gitlab:/ > > Discussion: do we do each or some reviews as a project on gitlab? Maybe > for big or collaborative ones have an issue tracker and tickets? > > > > Because it would be a low entry place for interested people to have a > look at what we do on a public repo and get involved. And means chairs > and others don’t need to hassle people for what is going on with > different reviews. > > > > Maybe ask on the list if this is a good idea to: > > - Open a ticket when you start you review > > - Close it when you finish > > - And upload it to gitlab > > > > /Reviews as rubberstamps (legitimacy of what we are doing?)/ > > Discussion: why should people care about our reviews? This came up in > response to some of the reviews we did. Where people questioned why they > should care about our reviews. IRTF chair suggested some changes the > introduction language of reviews. Right now: We find people who are > doing good work and review that (that’s why we review MLS). But It’s > harder to get legitimacy for bad drafts and to get people to care (Regex) > > > > _To do:_ > > - Further conversation about issue paper on DoH/DoT > > - Bring some of the discussion points to the HRPC meeting > > - Talk more about who our audiences are for the reviews > > - Further develop the draft guidelines (add NTo, Gurshabad, and Amelia > approaches) > > - Ask list what they think about doing reviews on gitlab > > - Give more thought about what our legitimacy model is for reviews > > * * > > > > -- > Corinne Cath - Speth > Ph..D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute > > Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath > <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath> > Email: ccath@turing.ac.uk <mailto:ccath@turing.ac.uk> & > corinnecath@gmail.com <mailto:corinnecath@gmail.com> > Twitter: @C_Cath > > _______________________________________________ > HR-rt mailing list > HR-rt@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hr-rt > -- Mallory Knodel Head of Digital :: article19.org gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
- [HR-rt] Fwd: Notes from human rights review team … Corinne Cath
- Re: [HR-rt] Fwd: Notes from human rights review t… Mallory Knodel
- Re: [HR-rt] Fwd: Notes from human rights review t… Beatrice Martini