Re: [hrpc] status on draft-irtf-hrpc-political

On 10 Sep 2019, at 08:26, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:

>>> The use of the terms “normative” and “de facto” requires clarity.  The author is essentially saying that standards are in effect normative, even if we claim them to be voluntary.  
>> 
>> Exactly, that is what emerges from the research.
> 
> 
> Then isn’t that a far stronger thesis?  The question you are asking in Section 3 is trivially true, IMHO.  It boils down to the old maxim, that politics exists in a room of more than one person.  Which brings me to my next point.

Agree that this is trivially true, but surprisingly difficult to reference, a problem that is central to the existence of this document.

I would be very interested in works that go deeper and beyond this, but for the moment we haven’t established this by consensus within the community.

-M

-- 
Mallory Knodel
Head of Digital :: article19.org
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9  B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780

>> 
>>> I am left with a major question: So what?  What are the implications of the answer to this question and why is it important to ask.
>> 
>> As you know, previous versions of this document came up with recommendations. But it was then brought up that a research cannot make recommendations for the IETF. Therefore this document serves as a platform for further discussion, and thus ensuring we don't need to repeat all the discussions we've had.
> 
> 
> I fear you may have taken away the wrong conclusion from those discussions.  It is perfectly fine to make recommendations to the IETF.  Indeed I would say that the IRTF is at its best when it can make recommendations.  You just cannot do so in a normative fashion from the IRTF.  More importantly, showing some example of societal benefit/harm will ground the work.  Just be sure to ground your analysis in your recommendations.
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> In addition, I have some questions about the supporting material.
>>> 
>>> Regarding this text in Section 4.5:
>>> 
>>> The process that led to [RFC6973] is similar: the Snowden disclosures, which occured[sic] in the political space, engendered the IETF to act.
>>> 
>>> I believe the author is actually referring to RFC 7258 (6973 was in the RFC Editor queue when Snowden hit, and is the product of the IAB), but even here, some additional support is necessary.  7258 was indeed motivated by Snowden.  But it addresses what is viewed as a technical problem.  That technical problem itself has political ramifications, but this isn’t really teased out well.  Keep in mind that people supported the publication of that document for reasons of their own, and we cannot really ascribe motivations.
>> 
>> The argument that is made is that is was a technical argument, which was also a political position. It does not say what the position it, but it foregrounds the socio-political nature of a technical statement.
> 
> Yes- but your statement could be read to infer political motivations on the part of the IETF.  And that is what I would be cautious about.  I think this is editorial.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Eliot
> 
> [1] https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/06/itat-2013_submission_5.docx
> [2] https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/06/itat-2013_submission_17.pdf
> [3] https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/standards-and-public-policy/9439DB66D660C8131578652F547A9E82
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> hrpc@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc