Re: [hrpc] HRPC, next

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

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.

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

-- 

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint	   2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488  
                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3