Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
Allison Mankin <allison.mankin@gmail.com> Fri, 21 September 2018 17:27 UTC
Return-Path: <allison.mankin@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B7F71292AD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 10:27:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 5C-0C5bHeMqv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 10:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52d.google.com (mail-pg1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) (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 A36011277CC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 10:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id y18-v6so3055942pge.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 10:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=a8eRM0nLQ5EiOAoMBYydYkGIsGvlkN/qPGPIniijWCM=; b=lwMV/xvEyrTAxjq122dFIA2YSmZE2v9Eq8YI/twqXlqp0mY+tpWqlbv6uuVqmbD0eS W9c9XyQdBXlRqIQwWZgyxSBq0TqQpJk2drRSFt9XBYWg6yxV6+cDhT/RPDtydWL3UWPy MfVwpVtJThO6JoqV2PCUvN0Mi+lrCk+BewiOuy/QFUGN10L51aQUVOPbZtc4g5l5DMhP TvhV0ubfuLDXN6g+7fNKp+UVzO5nWCLZbJy6+XtaFXPbqAXtphL9JGRCLWa2qmbTTK64 +mJTlYV3QU5/XkCIak+JxP3lwkQhuWzSgs/HF5/3GVKuPaCXMMS3mlL7NVq9HZqQTrRj dvsg==
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=a8eRM0nLQ5EiOAoMBYydYkGIsGvlkN/qPGPIniijWCM=; b=n8m2hLsjPXZJdRgGtkbgfDEiPuCHFBC78e0T8OIy8oYQGHlB/Uyc3rmavmPt0uWk0L mj0Ant1H7twGvpo/YvMoB1fA4WYDw83c00CR2ql45quWM3LqDOoAgijShFlLNl7Ymb+1 k/1bxXI9i7d72u8DZWUw5KCQIkKDW2ywdJrHhxyPgTIW298soxeoj94tHODkJE5WbF6W 1M7jm6yslTxQtrhcAhoYM7H0JpDdMUP+i33RV2/3zK5nLin0UmELfBvw/VEnHsXrR2Py 84F5xyQWpDzB8VDCINjr148D3yp/fdTCLBJYpiz4QHrxtjxYsoxmNI3D3ajG9NAacvGb G/Pw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51AlhV0aYG9tsT7d+kwHQcT+0Ork0dZ657/QORl1acKw6u8Scebn NyzlTmJ2VE5riajWPDmk0fo5J67VADXg0GJirDU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdZyMadibW1mFmgWIRqKsWbBa9eMO8xhgJXcOLQsc7oMTvkw2EyAmk6GuzWRD+mYNPEalJqKH064E/5w2F7TAqU=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:7e1c:: with SMTP id z28-v6mr41856761pgc.246.1537550840068; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 10:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1809211040490.77409@ary.qy> <32d96826-38ff-4b40-a6c5-f979ac9dbfda@avris-iPad> <CAKKJt-fEZnE1GvbJqrTuAkwwPXVWJi==i=4=+tid0z729AzbGg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-fEZnE1GvbJqrTuAkwwPXVWJi==i=4=+tid0z729AzbGg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Allison Mankin <allison.mankin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 13:27:19 -0400
Message-ID: <CAP8yD=uOWTzn7UrJhc_iS=urvefXBvmage4qP_YbqDr2ysz13g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
To: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "avri@acm.org" <avri@doria.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a57ee8057664f345"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QM-fKyMWgnt8v6R1W2tiaI1yXko>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 17:27:23 -0000
+100 to both Spencer and Avri's messages. I liked Avri's formulation "a little messy" because research into social science intersections with technology is still research, and there are intellectual goals. I appreciate Spencer reminding this group that IRTF and its processes are not IETF processes. The IRTF chair and IAB are the parties in chartering, review, and closing of RGs. We can also go to irtf-discuss@irtf.org with further discussion of IRTF matters. And I'll repeat that if someone see an open research question, gap, or issue, the door is open in IRTF groups for to initiate discussion with or without a draft. All the RGs are open, their mailing lists are listed on their datatracker pages, and you are welcome. On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 at 12:54, Spencer Dawkins at IETF < spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > On Avri's point ... > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 11:18 AM Avri <avri@doria.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> HRPC is not an IETF WG that is on a direct path toward some specific >> engineering goal. The group is exploring, and occasionally annealing on, >> some points of consensus. Part of our exploration will look at the impact >> of decisions made in the IETF, but the results of those explorations are >> just food for thought and not in any way binding on anyone anywhere about >> anything. We cannot destroy a consensus. >> > > Part of my time on the IAB (2010-2013) was spent being surprised at > differences between the IETF (which I thought I understood) and the IRTF, > and I found enough other people in the IETF who also didn't understand the > differences, that Lars Eggert , who was IRTF Chair before Allison, approved > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7418/, which is "An IRTF Primer for > IETF Participants". > > If you're an IETF person who hasn't spent much time in the IRTF, you might > find it useful, and not just about HRPC. > > >> It would be a pity to have this research group, which I thought was just >> beginning to find its stride and getting into the tough discussions, >> censored for its occasionable disagreeableness or touchy subjects. And >> while I am not quite sure how the IETF goes about closing an IRTF RG, I do >> hope no such thing happens as I beleive it would reflect quite badly on the >> IETF. One value I hope we can continue to strive for is the ability to >> discuss the difficult without becoming difficult. >> > > I can't speak for any of the people I'm about to mention, but I suspect > the IETF closing an IRTF RG would be a surprise to the IRTF Chair, and to > the IAB who are chartered with oversight of the IRTF, and who typically > reviews an RG at every IETF meeting (the honor of a specific RG being > reviewed rotates). At least in the past, it hasn't worked that way. > > Make good choices, of course. > > Spencer > > Thanks >> Avri >> (Co-chair HRPC RG) >> >> On Sep 21, 2018 at 10:49, <John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>> wrote: >> >> > I strongly agree, and would go further. >> > >> > As I see it, the HRPC suffers fundamental problems from both >> > participation and its charter. >> >> Thanks. I was going to write something like that but you said it better. >> >> There are inherent tensions among different human rights. Free speech is >> great, but it enables trolling, phishing, and swatting. Censorship is >> bad, but most of us would prefer to censor phishes to our parents and >> tweets of porn photos with our daughters' faces pasted in. The >> traditional assertion is that the response to bad speech is more speech, >> but that was from an era when printing presses were expensive, and there >> weren't million-bot armies of screaming trolls. It is possible to think >> productively about this tension, as Dave Clark did in his terrific plenary >> talk at IETF 98, but unfortunately, he is an outlier. >> >> I have spent over a decade arguing with people who imagine themselves to >> be human rights advocates and are unwilling to consider the implications >> of their narrow focus on speech and anonymity. (This month in the ICANN >> WHOIS debate, a well known professor in Georgia is spluttering that every >> security researcher who says that they use WHOIS data to shut down malware >> and catch crooks is lying.) I am not interested in joining HRPC because, >> like Eliot, I see no evidence of willingness to engagem with the real >> range of human rights issues. >> >> In the IETF, yesterday on the regext list, "Human Rights Review of >> draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode" contains a long complaint that >> security features could be used to discriminate against people. Well, >> yes, that's what they're for. >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/regext/current/msg01768.html >> >> In anything like its current form HRPC is harmful to the IETF because it >> gratuitously undermines our security efforts. >> >> R's, >> John >> >>
- Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Niels ten Oever
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Riccardo Bernardini
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Stewart Bryant
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Petr Špaček
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Niels ten Oever
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dave Cridland
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Loa Andersson
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mukund Sivaraman
- SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anne-Marie Eklund-Löwinder
- RE: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Roberta Maglione (robmgl)
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ole Troan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Michal Krsek
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Tony Finch
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Job Snijders
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anton Ivanov
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anton Ivanov
- RE: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Adrian Farrel
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Jaap Akkerhuis
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs lloyd.wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… lloyd.wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Wouters
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Wouters
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs lloyd.wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Stephan Wenger
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Nottingham
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Stephen Farrell
- RE: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs John E Drake
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dick Franks
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs ned+ietf
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Hoffman
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- ""Man-in-the-middle""? <was, Re: SV: Diversity an… Charlie Perkins
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Michael StJohns
- Re: ""Man-in-the-middle""? <was, Re: SV: Diversit… Dave Aronson
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Heather Flanagan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Nottingham
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Heather Flanagan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs John C Klensin
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Anton Ivanov
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Yoav Nir
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Kyle Rose
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dave Cridland
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… John Levine
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Mark Rousell
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Alia Atlas
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Allison Mankin
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Lloyd Wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Lloyd Wood
- On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and offensi… Jari Arkko
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Eliot Lear
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Niels ten Oever
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Lloyd Wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Eliot Lear
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Alissa Cooper
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Paul Wouters
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Ted Lemon
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Donald Eastlake
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Lloyd Wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Niels ten Oever
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anton Ivanov
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Ted Lemon
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… John R Levine
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Wouters
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Eliot Lear
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Nico Williams
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Avri
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dave Cridland
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… John Levine
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Allison Mankin
- Tell me if I should send this Re: why exactly is … Mallory Knodel
- Mallory-in-the-middle attacks (Re: SV: Diversity … Nico Williams
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Nico Williams
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Glenn Deen
- Re: Mallory-in-the-middle attacks (Re: SV: Divers… Nico Williams
- Re: Tell me if I should send this Re: why exactly… lloyd.wood
- Re: Mallory-in-the-middle attacks (Re: SV: Divers… Mallory Knodel
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Mallory Knodel
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… S Moonesamy
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Mallory Knodel