Re: [hrpc] 2nd Research Group Last Call for draft-irtf-hrpc-research

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

Hi Stephen,

On 02/13/2017 04:31 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> On 13/02/17 14:50, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> On 02/10/2017 11:36 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>>
>>> I flicked quickly through this but I didn't give it a
>>> full read-through. With so much change I hope someone does
>>> do that, but I don't have time right now sorry. As always
>>> (sorry:-) I have a few comments:
>>>
>>> - Abstract:
>>>
>>> I hate >1 para abstracts. 
>>
>> Do you mean we should delete the hard return between these paras?:
> 
> Well, you could, but I meant more that I think abstracts should
> be a *short* one paragraph description of the content. I don't
> think you end up with that by merging these paragraphs.
> 
> IOW, please synopsize harder:-)
> 
> That said, this is just a style thing.
> 

I think you _are_ right. What about this:

This document aims to propose guidelines for human rights
considerations, similar to the work done on the guidelines for privacy
considerations {{RFC6973}}. If you want to apply this work to your own,
you can directly go to <xref
target="model-for-developing-human-rights-protocol-considerations" />.
The rest of the document explains the background of the guidelines and
how they were developed.


>>
>> This document aims to propose guidelines for human rights
>> considerations, similar to the work done on the guidelines for privacy
>> considerations {{RFC6973}}. This is achieved by providing a proposal for
>> a vocabulary to discuss the relation between human rights and Internet
>> protocols, an overview of the discussion in technical and academic
>> literature and communities, a proposal for the mapping of the relation
>> between human rights and technical concepts, as well as guidelines.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you want to see how to apply this work to your own, you can directly
>> go to <xref
>> target="model-for-developing-human-rights-protocol-considerations" />.
>> The rest of the document explains the background of the guidelines and
>> how they were developed.
>>
>> I think it adds to readability and giving people what they need, but if
>> you feel strongly....
>>
>> The rest of the abstract is mostly boilerplate text, merging that with
>> the above doesn't seem very useful to me.
>>
>>
>> It also seems wrong at this point
>>> for the document to say that it "aims to be a consensus
>>> document" - but maybe the intent was to change that to
>>> "this represents RG consensus" after Avri calls the result
>>> of the 2nd LC? 
>>
>> Exactly
>>
>>>
>>> - section 4:
>>>
>>> This bit needs fixing: "if the IETF were to bake the UDHR
>>> into its protocols, countries who do not agree with that
>>> might completely withdraw from the standard setting process."
>>> Countries do not participate in the IETF's process so this
>>> makes no sense. I'd also not like s/countries/people from
>>> countries/ as that assumes all a country's citizens agree
>>> with something at once. I'd delete that argument, reducing
>>> to three arguments, which is enough.
>>>
>>
>> OK - removed.
>>
>>> - later in section 4:
>>>
>>> "Our position is..." I'm not at all sure that's appropriate
>>> language for a document that claims to have rough consensus.
>>> I'm also not at all sure that the rest of that para does in
>>> fact represent rough consensus of the RG.
>>
>> You think this does not represent the rough consensus of the RG ? 
> 
> See below wrt the text that follows this phrase...
> 
> The "Our position is..." phrase is problematic regardless.
> 
> If the rest of the para does represent RG consensus then
> there's no need for the problematic phrase. You could
> delete it, or s/Our/The RG's/ and it'd be ok.

The RG was meant all the time, so I indeed changed in into 'RG's'.

> 
> If the rest of the para does not represent RG consensus
> then I'm not sure why the authors' divergent opinions are
> being presented, and if they are, it'd be better to be
> clearer about that position not being part of the RG
> consensus. And to also be as clear if there are any other
> similar bits of text. (And it'd probably be good to be
> consistently clear in how that's done too:-)
> 
>> This
>> has been in here for quite a while, and I haven't heard many people
>> arguing against this position:
>>
>> ... hard-coding human rights into protocols is complicated and changes
>> with the context. At this point is difficult to say whether hard-coding
>> human rights into protocols is wise or feasible.
> 
> The rest of that paragraph is much longer than that. And yes,
> I'm not convinced that all of the rest of that para does
> represent RG consensus, for example the last sentence which
> says:
> 
>   "In addition, it
>    ensures that the impact of specific protocol on human rights is
>    carefully considered and that concrete design decisions are
>    documented in the protocol."
> 
> I'd be surprised if that "ensures" was widely accepted. I
> don't buy it anyway;-)
> 

Changed into:

In addition, it contributes to the careful consideration of the impact
that a specific protocol might have on human rights and that concrete
design decisions are documented in the protocol.


> While this specific point isn't mega-important, since it's
> fairly obvious that we can't often "ensure" stuff like this
> gets done, I'm raising it as it could be indicative of
> two relatively new to the process authors not quite getting
> how RG consensus ought be reflected in a draft that claims
> to represent the RG consensus. (And yes, apologies for not
> raising this before.)
> 
> Note that I'm not accusing you guys of anything here, (we
> have an odd process, and this is an odd document even in
> that odd process, and this bit of text is an even odder
> corner case in that pile of oddity;-) but if there are
> other bits of text that you think represent your opinion
> but not the RG consensus (or where Avri thinks that) then
> it'd be good to call those out in some consistent and
> very clear manner, or to remove the text. I haven't gone
> through the whole doc looking for that kind of text and
> I'm not sure if anyone else has. My feeble excuse for not
> having done that is that as I said before I think this'd
> have been better not aiming to be an RG consensus document:-)
> And I'm willing to believe you/Avri if told that you had a
> look and there are in fact no other bits of text like that.
> 
> If this turns out to be the only bit of text like this,
> then I'd also wonder if it's really worth including.
> 

I hope it's fixed, and I don't think there are any diverging views
between RG and authors in the dock, and I also think there is no
language left that implies that. But always happy to address unclarities
of course.

Thanks for being patient with these two
relatively-new-to-the-process-authors :)

Cheers,

Niels


> Cheers,
> S.
> 
> PS: I don't recall another IRTF RG consensus draft that
> had bits of text representing the authors' non-consensus
> opinions, but maybe someone else does in which case whatever
> was done before could be copied. I'd be fine with us following
> a precedent like that. If we're setting one here though,
> then I'd prefer we try set a precedent that this kind of
> thing ought be called out clearly and consistently.
> 
> 
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>>>
>>> My conclusion from the list discussion and from the above
>>> is that I'm supportive of this being published. That'll be
>>> better as an informational RFC, as otherwise we may waste
>>> time debating "so what's the experiment exactly" which'd
>>> be a bit pointless in this case.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> S.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09/02/17 20:37, avri doria wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> As mentioned in an earlier note, many changes were made to the draft in
>>>> response to comments made during the last last call. As these changes
>>>> were not just editorial, decided we needed another RGLC to review the
>>>> changes.
>>>>
>>>> As of now starting a 2 weeks call on:
>>>>
>>>> 	Title           : Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations
>>>>         Authors         : Niels ten Oever
>>>>                           Corinne Cath
>>>> 	Filename        : draft-irtf-hrpc-research-10.txt
>>>> 	Pages           : 74
>>>> 	Date            : 2017-02-08
>>>>
>>>> The call will end on Noon 1200 UTC 24 Feb 2017,
>>>>
>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-hrpc-research/
>>>>
>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-hrpc-research-10
>>>>
>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-hrpc-research-10
>>>>
>>>> For a diff to the previous RGLC version (-07)
>>>> Use: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff
>>>> and refer to drafts:
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-irtf-hrpc-research-07.txt
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-hrpc-research-10.txt
>>>>
>>>> Please send comments to: [e-mail]
>>>>
>>>> Please forward this call to anyone you think should consider reviewing this doc.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> hrpc mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> hrpc mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> hrpc mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>>
>