Re: [hrpc] Review of draft-irtf-hrpc-political-01
Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org> Thu, 28 March 2019 07:43 UTC
Return-Path: <jhall@cdt.org>
X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE8E5120438 for <hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 00:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cdt.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OP0UYsV-4p5H for <hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 00:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32a.google.com (mail-ot1-x32a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B50F8120170 for <hrpc@irtf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 00:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id u15so17396730otq.10 for <hrpc@irtf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 00:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cdt.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wZANhudo+dcEit7y8+EQ/135GynFvV4txZ/D1JuM1sg=; b=nA4O5S/ZkDMtPOOAioPCgJ2IsDZlSpJ0oVwTAJ4rNJCweOZonMREWE9EAvlWXqTI5V 6Lxy+jCEBr1f9KjayV1Sluy9GNatdZzuHObfI4lRPIiewTLoI8xwvzZw/03IBs9pDndS YajeImhcA/RfdxhTo5KksGPezzwp/GpoQPe9U=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wZANhudo+dcEit7y8+EQ/135GynFvV4txZ/D1JuM1sg=; b=WRMYUVxD1GkdWGJhuTopaAtbYHMaRJknvBbJKtQWjkSInBIvj2fIvnHEGkt/5MvI/h Fo4LFsTWJZkEMnHSjpk75Un2xrK1XbRogzfxNfq4sRcV6kDAAeeajPNx/MAR+IopZ71i J21DeTADs65ljm9BkteR9wE8roWRr0oPT9gUXkM7wwlji6Lu4ZJFvM3IAsTsZjqjUPBh 5OMYiJ7hjm3gAysxoNUmvBUYDObslIJPyhkwqFeil8vlvxxu/u39WUQTEXq+ZsIGma33 Uxzv66ntcrKX6aFNIfK/ICLuBVAmYem4gq9XImGGLDZciItQ5hKvyWVLZG+2cjvjpRe+ M9Sw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU3VHEwUgshQp92Oc0VwXDBEZvQOGC+8eRECk5r4q8HJG7g5cjD Tsh26E0y/rEGwc52JvO7P6fFrgFZ20bVxq0cA1f00fOSqqGtPi5f
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxPfiYicsTAofzgMaKg+CS3eUlvg2StWDyoC7eit2rdkJlAfna6jg0vfm8FRlePnWDRcIvL502gJibnyzweIBQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:51:: with SMTP id d17mr24982806otp.178.1553759015762; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 00:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4f0fe201-61fb-d039-3f3d-5b9258302afe@briarproject.org>
In-Reply-To: <4f0fe201-61fb-d039-3f3d-5b9258302afe@briarproject.org>
From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 03:43:24 -0400
Message-ID: <CABtrr-V2kFvvy_ie+yFXxeP0KS7kR+_ythi1tWOtz5OutBqxxA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Rogers <michael@briarproject.org>
Cc: Hrpc <hrpc@irtf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000339883058522b650"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hrpc/hVMq5R-7_94IugpDpxrzKBd1Tvk>
Subject: Re: [hrpc] Review of draft-irtf-hrpc-political-01
X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" <hrpc.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/hrpc>, <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hrpc/>
List-Post: <mailto:hrpc@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc>, <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 07:43:50 -0000
Heya, I want to thank Michael for this review and I just reviewed the document this week myself (sorry so close to the HRPC meeting... I'm fresh off of sabbatical and focusing on the iasa2 work for a few years). Here are my comments, let me know if they make sense: - draft-irtf-hrpc-political-00 - - Abstract: - - s/standards developing process/standards development process/ - s/reflect was is considered/reflect what is considered/ - "ordering of societies and communities" I don't think this will be clear to an engineering audience; we say this not just in this draft but elsewhere too (-guidelines). There has to be a more understandable way to say this if we're talking to IETF engineers. - "the consideration of the politics and (potential) impact of protocols should be part of the standardization and development process." This seems overly prescriptive and not a research result, but a normative claim on changes to the IETF process; I think this is out of line for an RG. - Intro - - This provides a useful list of past IETF RFCs that had to struggle with non-engineering factors in standards setting, but then says, "Recently there has been an increased discussion on the relation between Internet protocols and human rights [RFC8280]", pointing to the HRPC IRTF RFC... I think this needs to qualify that this discussion had happened in the IRTF and not ubiquitously across the IETF. - Would be great to find a more plain language way of saying "affordances". I'm not convinced the definition in the terminology section is comprehensible to engineers. ("The possibilities that are provided to an actors through the ordering of an environment by a technology.") - Terminology: there's no IETF-based document that defines "protocol"? I would swap with one or zap both protocols and standards using the rationale Michael Rogers put forward (IETFers know what those are). - Research Question: - - It seems like the second part of the research question is getting close to stepping on IETF territory... And the document doesn't *research* this question: "If so, should the politics of protocols need to be taken into account in their development process?" - Section 4: - - This needs to be clear this discussion has happened at IRTF, not IETF or needs to cite more evidence: "Nonetheless there has been a recent uptick in discussions around the impact of Internet protocols on human rights [RFC8280] in the IETF and more general about the impact of technology on society in the public debate." - This section is unclear in terms of if these are all academic or IETF-external views... the intro to this section seems to overclaim about what the reader should expect. E.g., 4.2 and 4.3 have no references; are any of these themes from community interviews or solely from the literature? - - This doesn't seem to reference interviews at all, so maybe clarify this is from academic and other literature? - Would be great to find a more simple term than "conurbation". - 4.3: this is perhaps a minor point, but even horse-powered vehicle culture at scale would require these things, so it's not self-evident this claim is true: "But even if that did not happen, widespread automobile use requires paved roads, and parking lots and structures. These are pressures that come from the automotive technology itself, and would not arise without that technology." (I don't think this undermines the point being made here, but it's distracting.) - 4.5: the entire paragraph about the numbered Postman arguments is pretty opaque and needs the authors to unpack that or is not relevant to engineers. I think you can delete this graph without much effect. - Again, this is a bit too abstract and could be stated more simply and concretely: "Finally, this view is that that protocols are political because they affect or sometimes effect the socio-technical ordering of reality." - Section 5: - - We either need to find a new way of saying "epistemic community" or define it. - 5.1: not sure what's going on here: "The next subsection will ---" - 5.1: is "economy studies" different from economics? - The ref to draft-arkko-ietf-finance-thoughts-00 is broken somehow - Agora? What is that? - Section 6: - - s/its standards output reflect was is considered by the technical community/its standards output reflect what is considered by the technical community/ - This is where the draft makes a leap that I think is too far: "This calls for providing a methodology in the IETF community to evaluate which routes forward should indeed be feasible, what constitutes the "good" in "good practice" and what trade-offs between different feasible features of technologies are useful and should therefore be made possible. Such an analysis should take societal implication into account." Only IETF consensus can get us to this and that's not going to come from an RG. - - While I agree that it's inevitable that these factors will affect and need to affect IETF work, I'm not sure it needs to be done in the IETF (it can be an external body or some other entity that concentrates expertise) and I'm not convinced that the IETF participants will be on balance very good at this, given their collective expertise is largely engineering. - I think this could be substantially elaborated/expanded and then be very useful: "The risk of not doing this is threefold: (1) the IETF might makedecisions which have a political impact that was not intended by thecommunity, (2) other bodies or entities might make the decisions forthe IETF because the IETF does not have an explicit stance, (3) otherbodies that do take these issues into account might increase inimportance to the detriment of the influence of the IETF." - Section 7: - - s/United National/United Nations/ - Unclear what this means, reword: "The complexity of the work inscribes a requirementof competence in the work in the IETF, which forms an inherentbarrier for end-user involvement." On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 11:58 AM Michael Rogers <michael@briarproject.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > Neils and Mallory asked me to review the current draft of "Notes on > networking standards and politics". > > I'm afraid I went a bit overboard and recommended that it should be > rewritten as a musical about a plucky kid lost in the big city and her > scruffy dog sidekick, so please take my comments with plenty of salt. > > The review's attached, along with a diff against the markdown source > containing some minor edits to spelling, punctuation and wording. > > Cheers, > Michael > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org] 1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497 e: joe@cdt.org, p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10 1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871 Don't miss out! CDT's Tech Prom is April 10, 2019, at The Anthem. Please join us: https://cdt.org/annual-dinner/
- Re: [hrpc] Review of draft-irtf-hrpc-political-01 Joseph Lorenzo Hall
- [hrpc] Review of draft-irtf-hrpc-political-01 Michael Rogers
- Re: [hrpc] Review of draft-irtf-hrpc-political-01 Niels ten Oever
- Re: [hrpc] Review of draft-irtf-hrpc-political-01 Mallory Knodel
- Re: [hrpc] Review of draft-irtf-hrpc-political-01 Niels ten Oever