Re: [hrpc] HRPC recharter

Jens Finkhaeuser <jens@interpeer.io> Mon, 17 April 2023 10:38 UTC

Return-Path: <jens@interpeer.io>
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 77497C14F74A for <hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 03:38:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=interpeer.io
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yM-WfIVuJ1V3 for <hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 03:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wilbur.contactoffice.com (wilbur.contactoffice.com [212.3.242.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5B8AC14E513 for <hrpc@irtf.org>; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 03:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fidget.co-bxl (fidget.co-bxl [10.2.0.33]) by wilbur.contactoffice.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A8407DB; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 12:38:08 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1681727888; s=20230406-edvt; d=interpeer.io; i=jens@interpeer.io; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type; l=5812; bh=9S+WJ8qUNerE7YD6Y0txl8ejl5ZTHZdE/E8g3keCgpI=; b=lnAH06MyYflcHl5zXOddM4Y9pe+LsrDboTbsF79ttcGZJevnjWK+VJD9iu7ENKYH 41HbeuDrn4qrBM4VMONz+fZGXJQ4DKCfsbSheGtIHdrvZsS4+lfnJqzKUXaNCmGlH5y JSQc6YT08LbB+Jq+7FD+atKsH++vHhsyJnQ47nzL9Td33Bs/CjZXEZt/eoHq698KxP9 2Nw6AMqL4J2l2pUyHdocredD2PYETc6EI8sYyeXCvaXRckm2h3MkbS9K5+yf35nX5zy DFeKIeiwDHGH7p8DoQ22URX4PNCEyu1pLeSOty54PaL0gCdakQX3mNH/XgR97Iiblyd AmTQrTd6ew==
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 12:38:02 +0200
From: Jens Finkhaeuser <jens@interpeer.io>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, hrpc@irtf.org
Message-ID: <1071233616.330390.1681727882418@fidget.co-bxl>
In-Reply-To: <hkmdydfdj3gb5inh6yazg7dxe26bppwwditzp2mfj4gszqbgxt@eocak2d42plx>
References: <6ddd480d-76ed-a05e-066d-d740fee61441@cdt.org> <2e18e418-dfde-e23f-9639-1ca0ea6ad7f1@cdt.org> <CABcZeBMSvWk4MOvv88dfuWtRwy_KBji6YgQG8zmVKcnyNDaqaA@mail.gmail.com> <1717379803.9766.1681364750928@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com> <20230413174921.iofttsu3h3gued7u@crankycanuck.ca> <1096362655.14319.1681466701602@fidget.co-bxl> <hkmdydfdj3gb5inh6yazg7dxe26bppwwditzp2mfj4gszqbgxt@eocak2d42plx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----=_Part_330387_1631155345.1681727882418"
X-Mailer: ContactOffice Mail
X-ContactOffice-Account: com:366827674
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hrpc/huDUKLawSpkSCprCap_ZbUNDWQ0>
Subject: Re: [hrpc] HRPC recharter
X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: hrpc discussion list <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: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 10:38:20 -0000

Hi Andrew, others,

> But if policy-makers are having this forum advertised to them as a way to influence "the IETF" or a way to inject policy considerations into IETF procedures, that _is_ an issue (and is also politics by other means, I suppose, since that's been such a theme).

Agreed.

> I'd be interested in any examples you have of such advice that came from this RG.  In my actual job, of course, we provide such advice to policy-makers all the time, but we generally don't use RFCs to do so. Frankly, even the format of RFCs is sufficiently strange as to be fairly useless for such persuasion. And the "rough consensus of the RG" rule is kind of impossible to explain (it's possible, though not easy, for protocols.  But nobody I've tried to talk to about it has any understanding of what it means for a RG to have consensus on a research output.  This might be my fault, since _I_ don't understand it so have a hard time giving an account).

Rather than addressing each point individually and risk getting side-tracked in minutiae, take RFC8280 as an example. The information in this is about HR and technical means that may impact them. While it is aimed at protocol designers, the information within encompasses also (in parts) how *not* employing such means impact HR. That in turn is the kind of information that policy makers need, and are routinely advised on by yourself and others. So it should be possible to effectively turn around the direction of argumentation and produce a kind of reference document for advising policy makers. While that isn't really the purpose of an RFC, it can IMHO be made to fit, and is the mechanism we have.

If I read your comment as asking whether the new charter should prioritize this kind of work and/or whether it already does so effectively enough, then that leads back to the overall discussion, I think.

I hope that makes sense,
Jens

Interpeer gUG (haftungsbeschraenkt), Greifenberg
Registered: Amtsgericht Augsburg, HRB 37686
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Jens Finkhaeuser
https://interpeer.io/

----
From: jens@interpeer.io
To: ajs@anvilwalrusden.com, hrpc@irtf.org
Apr 17, 2023, 12:37:55 PM