Re: [hrpc] re how 8280 is being used for HR considerations sections

[Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sandra,

Thanks a lot for your offer of examining those drafts. As a background, may I offer the fact that both authors of I-Ds that have been assessed, authors of I-Ds that used the guidelines themselves, as well as people who have done several assessment of other people's I-Ds using these guidelines, have contributed to the current document? So in that sense I think this document already lives up to what you describe as: 'the document should not be considered complete until uses people are making of the existing document for which the draft is trying to provide guidelines have been examined and insights they provide have been incorporated into the text'.

Best,

Niels

PS You might want to have a look at several mailinglists to see how RFC 3552 and RFC6973 came into being if you want to make a proper comparison between those documents and draft-guidelines.





On 4 May 2021, 10:21, at 10:21, Sandra Braman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Given the process, there is no need or reason to say analysis of this
>subject "can't be included" in the draft guidelines document currently
>being discussed. An alternative formulation would be to say that the
>document should not be considered complete until uses people are making
>of
>the existing document for which the draft is trying to provide
>guidelines
>have been examined and insights they provide have been incorporated
>into
>the text. This is not only within existing scope but a basic step, for
>would be for many the first step, for either a researcher looking at
>this
>problem or for someone who is writing a guide in a technical writing
>sense.
>
>I'll do the analysis of discussions of the human rights considerations
>section in the 7 drafts that include these sections and report back as
>soon
>as I can. This should be a couple of weeks, and by then I'll have other
>thoughts on what is the current draft of the text at that point as well
>(with all thumbs up the option I, as so many, am hoping for). It will
>also
>be interesting to see the genetic drift from RFC 3552 to RFC 6973
>(which
>opens by saying it is modeled on 3552) to RFC 8280; the 3552 I asked
>about
>a few days ago is the grandparent. Thanks again to Gurshabad for
>pointers
>as I am still learning my way around the document system.
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]>
>> To: Sandra Braman <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Bcc:
>> Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 11:23:53 -0400
>> Subject: Re: [hrpc] re history lessons
>> On 5/3/21 11:15 AM, Sandra Braman wrote:
>>
>> > and what the reasons were for not ultimately including that section
>in
>> > documents ultimately published
>>
>> No one has yet done this research so it can't be included or cited.
>>
>> We do not have any current work items on it either but would openly
>> encourage and welcome them,
>>
>
>
>>
>> -M
>>
>> --
>> Mallory Knodel
>> CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
>> gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
>>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>hrpc mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc