Re: [Pearg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-pearg-safe-internet-measurement-00.txt

After a quick look, I see....

Document: draft-irtf-pearg-safe-internet-measurement-01.txt

   The reduced impact should not be used as an excuse for pushing higher
   risk updates, only updates that could be considered appropriate to
   push to all users should be A/B tested.

This may just be wordsmithing, but as written, this text is entirely
unrealistic. One of the major reasons that one does A/B testing is
that you are concerned about risk in the Treatment group (e.g., that
there will be a higher risk of failures, crashes, etc.) and the
reason you are doing an A/B test is to mitigate that risk.

I'm not sure how to phrase this (internally, we usually talk about
the code having been appropriately reviewed and landed according
to policy), but the current text doesn't work.

-Ekr

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 6:10 AM Iain Learmonth <irl@torproject.org> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I wasn't sure that I'd have the time today to work on this, and I wanted
> to make sure the chairs had time to approve the rename before the
> cut-off, so I've uploaded two versions in quick succession. Sorry if
> you've already read the new -00 only to find that a -01 has already
> appeared.
>
> If you'd like to diff the new -01 against the previous individual draft,
> see:
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-learmonth-pearg-safe-internet-measurement-02.txt&url2=draft-irtf-pearg-safe-internet-measurement-01.txt
>
> Big changes are the inclusion of "case studies" in to help describe
> situations in which differing levels of consent might be considered
> acceptable for measurements to be performed, and also expansion of the
> data minimalization section.
>
> Instead of redefining anonymity, psuedonymity and the thresholds needed
> to say that a system can achieve these things, it may be useful to
> reference draft-irtf-hrpc-anonymity depending on how that draft develops.
>
> The guidelines on where consent is required do belong in this draft, but
> the definition of informed consent, proxy consent and implied consent
> may instead be in an HRPC draft. I've not looked extensively through
> those drafts yet.
>
> As always, comments are welcome either directly to me or via the PEARG
> list.
>
> I won't be at this IETF meeting but am happy to chat by mail or set up a
> call with anyone on this topic.
>
> Thanks,
> Iain.
>
> --
> Pearg mailing list
> Pearg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/pearg
>