Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-political-04.txt

[Mark Perkins <[e-mail]>]

 I disagree that these are real problems - more like things that need correction rather than 'show stoppers'.

The difference between standards and protocols is implicit in section 4.5, but I agree this needs to be made explicit in the vocabulary section (which is far too short). To note, this is not specific to this document, but is unfortunately widespread leading to the conflation of the two - as mentioned by Eliot.

So, vocabulary entries for protocol; standard; internet protocol; internet standard; ietf protocol; ietf standard.

The lack of WTO citation is not critical, just something that needs to be recitified (I have no argument with the WTO paragraph, it is fairly anodine). Lack of citations need to be indicated, and provided to the author(s) when aware.

The draft is full of examples - where precisely do people think they are missing?

This question of citations and examples is also linked to the question of 'readability', by which people here seem to mean creating the wish to read further - rather than legibility. BUT, given the subject matter, I think the supporting citations and examples are essential 'somewhere' in the document, even if in a section of their own (to increase the documents overall 'readability')

I agree that the importance of the research question needs explaining, although Neils states it clearly outside the document: 'And to prevent the RG of going in circles sometimes also about things that seem 'trivially true' '

Personally, I think that many 'techies' try to pretend that their work is 'not political', whereas it is clear from the document that this is not the case. Why is this important? Human rights ARE political, and internet protocol & standard processes, especially where they impact on human rights (especially 'fundamental' human rights) ARE political. This means that aside from 'Security considerations' for protocols, there are other, 'political', 'human rights' considerations that should be made clear, and not avoided. Paul Wouters puts this more diplomatically than I do.
Mark Perkins

    On Wednesday, September 18, 2019, 4:04:57 AM GMT+11, Melinda Shore <[e-mail]> wrote:  
 
 On 9/17/19 8:38 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> I think we can reach rough consensus, even when we disagree, without
> watering the content down to pabulum.  It is harder and, at least to my
> mind, is part of the exercise we are engaged in. In a RG document, we
> should be able to discuss all relevant sides of the issue, especially if
> our purpose is to inform.

I suppose this is another opportunity to remind people to
distinguish between disagreements that they can live with and
disagreements they cannot.  Also, sometimes (often, actually, I
think) it's necessary to document points of view we disagree
with, and presenting those points of view is not the same as
arguing for them.  However, I think it's worth noting that if
this is published as an RFC it's likely to be widely misconstrued
as representing the IETF view and it's probably a good idea to be
sensitive to that.

Also, as noted elsewhere, IRTF documents do not need to represent
RG consensus but I think it's a good idea if there's at least RG
agreement that the contents are correct.

Melinda

-- 
Melinda Shore
[e-mail]

Software longa, hardware brevis
_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc