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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

I had a read of -05. I didn't read (but just skimmed) all
the other comments before doing that so apologies if my
comments repeat (or utterly contradict:-) others that've
been sent to the list already.

Cheers,
S.

General:

- Overall, I don't think this is ready. I do think it could be with
  some more work, maybe another rev or two. Or it might take longer,
  not sure.

- If the authors didn't want to try aim for RG consensus on all of
  the text, then I think that'd make it easier to get an RFC
  published. I'd be ok with that, though I still think it'd need
  another rev or two (but the changes might be easier/less).

- I'd argue to entirely re-do or delete section 5. I see why it's
  included but I think in the end it didn't work out to be useful in
  the same document as section 4.

Detailed comments:

- "undisputed" in the abstract is likely to be disputed:-) By
  readers, I mean. s/undisputed/seems evident to the authors/ or
something might be better.

- intro: the Callon quote could do with a reference so readers can go
  find more context if they want. The first sentence of that quote
could mean lots of different things and I've no idea what exactly was
meant - I'd ditch that sentence or maybe the entire quote.

- intro: "affordances" - I've heard that term a number of times, but
  I don't think I really understand it. Also - how are users
"shaped"? I think you could have said that "people are affected by"
the technology, left it at that and been clearer.  (I see you define
that in section 2, so I do get it now that I've gotten that far.
Still might be better to avoid the forward reference if possible.)

- intro: does the document really "seek to answer" the question or
  rather try to explore the question? The latter seems more
tractable.

- intro: "The design of the Internet through protocols and
  standards..." That seems to ignore the "running code" aspect which
is critical to understanding how the Internet has arisen and evolves.

- The URL for [BramamI] doesn't work for me - my browser times out on
  that. (And why http and not https? :-) As below, it'd be better to
say a bit more about i18n here - it's fairly obvious but no harm
expanding the bullet beyond one word.

- intro: The reference to RFC101 (better that than RFC0101 btw:-) is
  unclear to me. There are many occurrences of the word access in
that RFC so what's meant by the bullet point here? It's not clear to
me.

- intro: same point about rfc49 - that has two mentions of "security"
  neither of which seem that relevant to this draft, so maybe say
what/why that reference is for. (And there may be a better one, if
what you've done is try find the earliest reference, that might not
be the best thing.)

- intro: same points for the other early RFC references and I guess
  [BramanII].

- intro: "This has been clearly shown in the work done by Sandra
  Braman..." - what "this" do you mean has been shown? It's not clear
to this reader.

- section 3: Suggest s/Answering/Exploring/

- section 4: RFC1087 says "The Internet is a national facility..." so
  I wonder if it's really so obvious a basis for the argument here.
The problem is that 1087 kinda says "be ethical or we'll tell the
Feds" and there aren't really equivalent Feds for today's Internet,
so the sentence here could be a bit misleading.  Maybe better to
qualify the reference here with something like "... even if the
Internet in 1989 was largely a US thing, similar problems and
requirements for ethical behaviour ought still apply." Not sure.

- 4.1: I note the references here are from 1991 and 1992 - isn't
  there a more recent expression of this position that could be
quoted? It left me wondering if the referenced authors might have
changed their positions since (I've no idea if they have or not, just
wondering, as my own ideas now are not what they were then:-)

- 4.2: This one is closest to my own position, but I wouldn't go
  along with "requires" which is far too strong - for me it's more
like this position "implies that protocols could be evaluated for..."

- 4.3: Even if the Internet is too complex, that doesn't imply
  anything for any one protocol. The rest of the 4.3 text also seems
unclear to me. I'd say a rewrite of this section would be good.

- 4.4: "The network..." do you mean the Internet or one of the
  networks that make up the Internet here? Or do you mean any network
of networks? I assume you mean any network of networks, like the
Internet but I'm not sure.

- 4.4: This seems to finish early or something. The end of the
  section talks about social and technical but never says political
so I'm unsure what a proponent of this position might believe vs. the
other positions in section 4.

- 4.5 (1): I've no clue what the emotional bias of a medium such as
  audio might be, or am I missing the point?

- 4.5 (2): "speed of their information" is an odd phrase, and I'm not
  sure what's meant.

- 4.5: IMO the raven process was an attempt to be technical and
  apolitical, at least as understood by some participants.  It's
likely incorrect to give the impression that everybody thinks that
the raven process was "largely political." (I do agree that many
people think that.) Similarly, while I agree that what "engendered"
7258 was Snowdonia, I do not agree that 7258 requires any
justification that is non-technical (i.e. IMO 2804 and 7258 and 1984
can all be sufficiently justified on purely technical grounds).
Again, I think the change to make here is to say that someone
espousing the position of 4.5 might agree with the current text, but
that those statements about 2804 and 7258 are not universally
accepted.

- 4.5: Neither 2804 nor 7258 are protocol specifications.  For me
  that significantly weakens the overall argument proposed in 4.5.
Surely soeomne who espouses this position could provide at least one
actual protocol example?  Presumably something that refers to 2804 or
7258 might suffice, but without that, there's a hole in the argument.
(Not that I agree with the argument in 4.5, but I feel better
disagreeing with something that isn't holed beneath the water line:-)

- 4.5: "consumer class" seems wrong to me. I don't believe there's
  what I'd call a "consumer class" for NTP for example. I'm not clear
from the phraseology as to whether the authors are asserting that
espousing 4.5 means agreeing with Winner here or not. In any case, I
think Winner is wrong here, for some protocols.

- section 5: "the different existing positions" - that's a claim that
  secction 4 has the full set. My bet is that I could easily find an
IETFer who espouses none of the above. s/the/some/ is better. Or you
could say those are the postions that were considered in this work.

- section 5: s/were created/are created/ and "formal" isn't quite
  right - TLS1.3 is getting closer to formal since bits of it were
formally verified but it is not formally specified in one well-known
sense of the term. s/formal// would be my suggestion. (I guess you
just mean "written down" by this use of "formal" which seems
unnecessary to me.)

- section 5: "100% royalty-free"? What? I'm misundertanding something
  here. We had years of RSA and ECC being encumbered to the detriment
of the Internet IMO, but 100% seems just wrong or else must be a
badly stated statement of something else?

- 5.1: "enhance competition" may be true sometimes but is a) not
  always true (I'll try assert NTP again as an example) and b) is far
down my list of why to do work in the IETF, but is presented as if we
all think this is the most important thing ever.

- 5.1: the discussion of "de facto" seems broken to me. Consider RFC
  3986 vs. whatwg for a real example that doesn't seem to fit your
description. (And I barf again at the mention of competition law for
such things as URL syntax:-)

- 5.1: mention of ISO, BIS... etc with no references or URLs seems
  wrong. (I've no idea what ABNT is for example, but I guess it's not
what first shows up in my search [1].)

   [1] https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/ABNT

- 5.4: Are the authors agreeing with [Nadvi] or not? I think you
  ought be clear. I'm not sure I'd agree that applies to the IETF
though, as IETF participants don't, in general, seem to me to be
well-decscribed as "transnational stakeholders" even though some or
many of them may be. I don't feel like one of those anyway;-)

- 5.4: The big [RogersEden] quote goes against IETF lore. I forget
  where we have that written down in an RFC but I think we do. (Where
"that" is "don't just end up with the union of the input proposals
but instead try find the right outcome" or something like that.

- Section 5 generally: I was left thinking "huh, what was the point
  of that section" when I finished reading that. I think you could
mostly delete the entire section and be ok.

- Section 6: I'd be happier if statements such as your opener did not
  depend on buying books. Haven't Russel or Abate ever written these
arguments down in something openly accessible?  (And BramanII is
still a broken link.) I don't think you've made the case via text or
accessible references that this opening conclusion statement is
correct. (I may agree with it, but I don't think you can justify it
based on this.)

- Section 6: "undisputed" again - I dispute that that's the right
  term.

- Section 6: I do not accept the [Russell] quote as being correct but
  haven't bought his/her book. I don't think you ought present that
quote as being an accepted statement.

- Section 6: I dispute that the implementation of protocols "is"
  political. I wrote some code last night for an I-D. That was not a
politcal act (I assert).

- Section 6: I dispute that "protocols can never be understood"
  without some inherently political framing. (If that's what you
meant.) I can teach kids about TLS and they can understand the
protocol without all the political add-ons. As it happens I do think
they better understand what TLS is and how it's used, if I include
some bits of that, but I don't believe it's needed for them to
understand the protocol itself.

- Section 6: I dunno if I agree about the future research.