Re: [hrpc] HRPC, next

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

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:
> 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.Assignment5 - We all like Fridays
> 
> 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:
>> 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?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> hrpc mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>