[hrpc] Technical remarks on draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-00
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Fri, 14 November 2014 05:35 UTC
Received: from [10.10.12.45] (helo=mx2.greenhost.nl) by mailman.lan with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>) id 1Xp9Xj-0004y2-La for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:35:35 +0100
Received: from aetius.bortzmeyer.org ([217.70.190.232] helo=mail.bortzmeyer.org) by mx2.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>) id 1Xp9Xj-0007Ty-2l for hrpc@article19.io; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:35:35 +0100
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 513263C0A6; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:35:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: by tyrion (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 03BE9F01428; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:35:08 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:35:08 -1000
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: hrpc@article19.io
Message-ID: <20141114053508.GA25277@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 14.04 (trusty)
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Spam-Level: /
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
X-Spam-Score: 0.8
X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner
X-Scan-Signature: f0eed3f1d89bc5fb772880ef8d54351a
Subject: [hrpc] Technical remarks on draft-doria-hrpc-proposal-00
X-BeenThere: hrpc@article19.io
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Human Rights Protocol Consideration Discussion list <hrpc.article19.io>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/options/hrpc>, <mailto:hrpc-request@article19.io?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ghserv.net/pipermail/hrpc>
List-Post: <mailto:hrpc@article19.io>
List-Help: <mailto:hrpc-request@article19.io?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/hrpc>, <mailto:hrpc-request@article19.io?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 05:35:36 -0000
[Most of the remarks here have been done AFK at the Security Area Open Meeting during IETF 91 in Honululu. I repeat them here because sometimes oral remarks, like UDP packets, are lost in transit.] I first suggest that this work inside IETF/IRTF is certainly welcome and useful but we should also clearly state in the draft that we recognize that, today, the problem is, most of the time, not in the protocols (IETF/IRTF activity) but in software, architecture and business. For instance, to have full access to email (access being a HR), whatever your native language, fully internationalised email addresses are certainly necessary. All the standards exist (RFC 6530 and its friends) but their deployment is very limited (except in Asia). So, there is certainly work to do, but it is not IETF/IRTF work, it is implementation and deployment. Section 2.1 of the draft could use some corrections. (By the way, there is no section 2.2: what was the idea?) 2.1.3 is titled "HTML" why it should be "HTTP". But there is more important. The draft observes rightly that "Websites made it extremely easy for individuals to publish their ideas, opinions and thoughts." But it does not imply that it comes from specific properties of HTTP. Said otherwise, if we replaced HTTP with FTP or Gopher, what would be different, from the point of view of HR? IMHO, this is the sort of things to put in the draft, identify precised characteristics of protocols that "solidify, enable or threaten human rights". For HTTP, I would say there are none in most of the RFCs mentioned, but that proposals like the expired draft draft-tbray-http-legally-restricted-status certainly are interesting for the HR. 2.1.5 grossly exaggerates the role of IDN, which are only a very small component in the internationalisation of the Internet. Even for "having their own URLs", they are only a part of the story (an URL is not made of just a domain name). This reminds me of the governance circus, where a disproportionate amount of effort was put in the IDN debate. It would be more interesting to identify the points where protocols are not yet internationalised enough. A good example is the work of the PRECIS working group <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/precis/>, for internationalised identifiers. I would also would like IPv6 to be mentioned: the lack of IPv4 addresses severely limit access for people (with CGN and stuff like that, you can be a passive consumer but hosting content, for instance, is much more complicated) and I do not find too far-fetched to say that the deployment of IPv6 is partly a HR issue.
- [hrpc] Technical remarks on draft-doria-hrpc-prop… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [hrpc] Technical remarks on draft-doria-hrpc-… Niels ten Oever