Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-political-05.txt

[farzaneh badii <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

 It is not enough to invoke certain authors' assertions or an RFC and
present them as evidence. The claims and arguments in this document have to
be analyzed in much more depth and every argument needs to be backed up
with evidence.

Additionally, I think the author is asking one question which he does not
sufficiently address and then in its conclusion, he provides a whole
different argument and in my opinion another hypothesis.

He asks: To bring about a better understanding on the political nature of
   standards and protocols, this documents asks the questions: If, and
   if so how, are protocols, standards, and politics interrelated?

He concludes: we might need to give a qualified answer to the research
question, in  the sense that protocols can only be understood in part
outside of
   their actual shaping, use, and applied function, which is political.



This document is simply incomplete and not ready to be even discussed
further. Also I think I have read the literature review part somewhere
else. If that is the case, then we don't have to publish it as a lit rev
either.





Farzaneh


On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 3:03 PM Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 9/21/19 5:09 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> > "Network topology is a complicated political and economic question with
> > obvious technical overtones"
>
> I don't think that answers Andrew's question.  The economic argument
> being advanced in 613 is:
>
>     2.  "Loops" are not good per se, they appear good because the act of
>     making loops increases the connectivity and thereby reduces the
>     effect of multiple failures.  Adding more circuits costs ARPA money,
>     both capital cost for IMP interfaces and recurring cost for the
>     circuits.
>
> so there's a cost/benefit question there that's inherently economic.
>
> Anyway, how the IETF usually responds to discussions like this is to
> narrow the scope of the document.  From my perspective the value in
> the document as it currently stands is primarily in the literature
> review, and there's much political in the IETF process (corporate
> jockeying, involvement of national governments) that isn't covered
> but which would make it incredibly difficult to get through any sort
> of consensus process if it were.  I'd also argue that the literature
> review avoids, for the most part, problems around perceptions that
> opinions are being presented as facts.
>
> So, it seems to me that it might be useful to strip out section 5,
> rewrite the research question and conclusion, and to publish this as
> a literature review.
>
> Melinda
>
> --
> Melinda Shore
> [e-mail]
>
> Software longa, hardware brevis
>
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>