Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-political-04.txt

[Mark Perkins <[e-mail]>]

 Hi all
Personally, I agree with the argument of the document and its importance, which is why I believe that it should be both be readable (people should want to read it), legible, well documented and supported by examples & citations.
Those who have pointed out lacking (or incorrect) citations &/or places where examples are missing, PLEASE be precise in pointing these out & providing citations, examples or corrections.
I agree that the vocabulary section needs to be filled out, and the text concord with definitions given (standards vs protocols, etc).
As for readability, I am not sure how this can be improved, unless many citations & examples are moved to a 'reference' section. Given the subject matter of the document, I do not think we can avoid providing many of the citations/examples...
As for the research question, as given it is clearly a binary yes/no.  Perhaps within the conclusion, a sub-section of 'resulting research questions' could be useful.
My 2 pacific francs
Mark Perkins
    On Wednesday, September 18, 2019, 9:06:18 AM GMT+11, Juliana Guerra <[e-mail]> wrote:  
 
 Hi,

I think this draft is complete in terms of content, recognizing its
purpose as a platform for further discussion.

For me, it's still difficult to get all the rules and acceptable manners
in IETF/IRTF but I suppose (correct me if I'm wrong, please) that RGs
need an interdisciplinary discussion, which also implies other
methodologies and problem statements, different from -and in dialog
with- engineering.

I totally think this document is useful and valuable, and I second
Paul's idea of including it in the newcomers introduction conference.

I also think that making some text changes will help to clarify the
problem. Reading the draft I feel there are a lot of implicit ideas that
can be explicitly stated. I propose some changes, different from those
proposed by Gurshabad. Hope it can help.

- For me it's a little weird to find only one sentence in Section 3.
Although the question is suggestive, its not a research question because
there are only two possible answers: yes or not. It would be interesting
to find a problem statement, for example one referring terms like open,
formal, voluntary, competition and collaboration, which appear as
problematic in relation to standardization processes throughout the
draft. Articulating these terms in one sentence may help to explicitly
tie Sections 4 and 5.

- I haven't followed in detail earlier discussions about this draft, and
I don't know why the definition of "protocols" and "standards"
were removed from Section 2 (Vocabulary Used). Beyond that, for me -an
external reader or an already new participant- in Section 5 it is not
clear what exactly is referred to as "standard setting processes" in
general, and in particular in IETF. This discussion about 'de facto' vs.
'de jure' and normative vs. voluntary in IETF particular case, can be
stated in one paragraph, may be in the Conclusions.

- For me it's not clear where exactly emerges the conclusion, mentioned
in a previous discussion, about "that standards are in effect normative,
even if we claim them to be voluntary". Reading and reading again the
draft I'm not sure if it emerges from the general review or from the
interviews, mailinglist and meetings exchanges, and participatory
observation. I don't think this part needs more content but to be
presented in a clearer form.

best,

Juliana Guerra


_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc