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

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

Hi Eliot,

On 9/17/19 7:47 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Avri,
> 
> I ask for guidance from the chair and from the RG as to what qualifies as ready for publication.  What are the criteria?  What are we aiming for?  Academic quality?
> 
> My view?   There are some real problems in the document.  This is not an exhaustive list:
> 

I am a bit surprised by this, since these are not points you brought up in your past email. But I am happy to address them of course.

>   * The thesis statement conflicts with the introduction, and conflates protocols and standards.

Could you be so kind to point out the conflict?

>   * As both protocols and standards are central to the document, you would think that they would be defined early on, like in the definitions section.

These definitions were there in the -01 version of the document:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-hrpc-political-01

Then the RG asked me to remove them, am happy to put them back in if people think that is the right way to go. 


>   * The difference between protocols and standards is not made, nor is equivalence.

See above. I also explained in my previous mail that I use standards where the argument supersedes protocols, especially for section 5 where lessions are brought in from other standard setting fields. 

Not all standards are protocols, but all protocols are standards. 


>   * There is no statement of import in the form of what real contribution the work is making and why that contribution matters.

What about these sentences?

From abstract:

This document aims to bring about a better understanding on the
   political nature of standards and protocols.


From intro:

  In this document we aim to outline different
   views on the relation between standards and politics, and seek to
   answer the question of whether standards are political, and if so,
   how.

>   * The general and the specific are conflated.  Are protocols and standards at issue here or are we talking about IETF protocols and standards?

We are talking about the political nature of networking protocols, specifically those in the IETF.

>   * The lack of examples is really quite frustrating.
> 

Why are examples, or cases, needed to proof the point? In an earlier comment you said that the thesis was extremely obvious? Am a bit at a loss.

> 
> There are a great many other problems with the draft, not the least of which is that the author makes unsupported claims, either by reference or proof, one example being the discussion in Section 5 about the WTO.
> 

Which claim do you mean specifically?

Best,

Niels

> Are these show stoppers?  Please before we continue, let’s understand our own standard for publication.
> 
> Eliot
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Researcher and PhD Candidate
DATACTIVE Research Group
University of Amsterdam

PGP fingerprint	   2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488  
                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3