Re: [hrpc] draft-tenoever-hrpc-political-00.txt

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 04/07/17 05:12, Melinda Shore wrote:
> This is a terrific topic and I'm glad to see this draft.

I agree it's a fun topic. I'm not sure if this'll end up
as a useful draft or not though, but I figure it's worth
exploring.

My own quick comments:

- I'm not sure this should try seek to "answer the
  question whether protocols are political" as I don't
  believe that's as useful as just fairly describing
  various positions on the topic. Maybe, after we've
  gotten the describing bit properly done, we'd be able
  to seek an answer, but I'm not sure that's worthwhile.

- 3.3 basically reflects what'd be my starting position,
  but I don't agree that that position "requires that
  each protocol and use be evaluated" follows from that
  at all, at least not without a qualifier like "if you
  care about whether protocol-foo may be political..."

- I think Andrew is right that some definition of how
  the term politics is used in this draft is needed.
  Does it encompass internal "politics" amongst IETF
  participants? Does it encompass company-internal,
  and intra-company politics? I'm not sure if the
  authors intended to include those or not.

FWIW, I'd probably review a version of this in detail
later, if the RG decide to adopt a later revision of
this draft. As of now, I don't think it's baked enough
for the RG to decide to do that yet, but discussing it
seems useful, as the topic has come up a few times.

Cheers,
S.