[HR-rt] Review Team Meeting `Notes IETF 104

Corinne Cath <corinnecath@gmail.com> Sun, 24 March 2019 11:08 UTC

Return-Path: <cattekwaad@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hr-rt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hr-rt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3CF012D110 for <hr-rt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 04:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1kt5B3TKcA2i for <hr-rt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 04:08:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x336.google.com (mail-wm1-x336.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::336]) (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 79784128BE6 for <hr-rt@irtf.org>; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 04:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x336.google.com with SMTP id a184so6091737wma.2 for <hr-rt@irtf.org>; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 04:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=I9di0d7KHLkiOzVovK1trhKgjRI6lLyxSaVuYAi+4Xo=; b=VAAH/CEiPpO+BYt1kPGJTnVGBMn3cVwu9HJd/5vxQWPsGvoo+gGSfDo2MANYeoNe3K XrAiDqaIRPxiSMdSXJrVeBmVNLj6iL1thXGFnY85/lRuBMrlQjbBGKKfWRryovc5RV80 bMLtFMLqxvIr0xlMF3k9u7N/jzTqx80RxLOCQOIORD87Wwsvmjfn/2O1gt5bdyqlXj6z ZanxZ1+jMcVwuuUGrbbcRx0W/FyvbgxMx8ntDiOKzH2+1GrEe22jn3hTdfgMF1EUmtte 91+Nm00MZpn76DHkocRGSOoQxWZ09Gfht+aOdSBlvMzp7PI3QkRgRCCHEueCREkTqOUz w3uA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=I9di0d7KHLkiOzVovK1trhKgjRI6lLyxSaVuYAi+4Xo=; b=WvWbH9icSE7wp0bTi+Ot+q6n79g26GJ/Pbh6aG7JQZEXx3c0k8TwjKc6x3kQXa7wKN U2hUOyu3j9VUF+0Z4nDDZUmgtetVNW1D8xu4mxXOA4NJ64CvQShkQ2HYV4pWTa2BbLjv ntEQvN+HP8B5Q+O/7UxlNZ2EUYz9rTERoXRNAKprz2QD3K+0YbdMXVY/tkbp8Iuh4k2D ZgXL7TdWUBo4LGUEUI9KNsjroIWCs3txYfZJGuaeoMSYYiIJfmMDXt+suXZ0hOAqmrzv jRAEc51YhsFBrsmkKsin4fgUd9wm3q2+jxMW9neukD6iK4Cu6dvPAJag35ppfmWWHqsc lCyw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWMK9UiqJ4xJCvBrod5jffmpUafDnHaKxbgu8fGdyr4oyNyf5Xv 05EAfS30uEWda2XegGE1q4fOZe66Fav5ASD7Mvmfe0IQ5mc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxMylzycdajH6JNMgyCraq4NPhLP5uzt0xOIN10XL5uxsg2gxkNAMSSdoltMrVTNOE2WIj8ocXXETnqJ7zJbpI=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:2dd2:: with SMTP id t201mr8205209wmt.44.1553425701582; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 04:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Corinne Cath <corinnecath@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 12:06:56 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD499eKF-c=djTi+-yZJFFkes8XdEtcb1WK8RYVM10GTpU6=bQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: hr-rt@irtf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000020befe0584d51bff"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hr-rt/ePmpCiWYJxyZ9RUhzUuvwRw02gM>
Subject: [HR-rt] Review Team Meeting `Notes IETF 104
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: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 11:08:27 -0000

Dear all,

Please find below my rough draft of the notes I took during the Review Team
meeting this morning.

Let me know if anything is unclear.

Human Right Review Team:

-       Has been contentious

-       Has put HRPC at risk

-       How to develop, two strategies below:


Strategy one:

Maybe we need to change the model and be working more WG based

We go into working groups and review from within

Reviews do need to be documented in one place, it can be tracked and
followed via interventions in drafts. Doesn't have to be separate documents.

We need to make the work more in line with how the WGs work.

Strategy two:

Sometimes it’s good to parachute in because at the end of a process the
authors might have difficulties seeing certain issues.

These two approaches are a bit difficult to combine (embed + parachute in)
– but if we pair folks up, it might work.


Maybe a review like that could have been a blog? Because it is interesting
but perhaps less suitable for a WG discussion.


We need to think about how the HRPC developments reflect on our


People talked to us about like we were a directorate, but we have course
corrected and been quieter in the approach. Maybe we need to change the
metrics, we know much more now about how we can be effective in this work.


How do you know where to work?

What do you do with it? How do we work with 8280? How do we know how to
iterate on our work?


Good question, I have some more questions in response:

Is it ability based?

Is it this group-is-on-fire-based?

Not sure I have all the answers to this.

Maybe we need to reverse map from 8280 to all the different WG and go from
there? CDT has a thing like that, maybe we ask to see it and work from that?


We shouldn’t just restrict that to IETF, this is also an issue for IEEE etc.

Sounds like a lot of work though

MK: review team next steps

Karan +GG finish current reviews

Scoping and mapping that can be done for work going forward

How do we share information about reviews


Responses are a good one for metrics


Uploaded a new version of the guidelines document

If reviews are done in an embedded way, how do we feed that back to the


We also need to see whether RFC8280 makes sense based on the feedback we get

We raised a lot of questions

Bangkok was a difficult meeting – have we sufficiently regrouped?

Which WGs people are in currently:

TLS (fellow)



Dots (MK)

MLS (SS + nat + dkg)


Quic (SS + CCS)

DinRG (SS)

PearG (SS + CCS)

DNSop (KS)


IPWave (AA)


SecDispatch (SS)


Maybe we should do a debrief after this week, also keeping in mind that we
are putting in new grants for this work.

Kind regards,

Corinne Cath - Speth
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