Re: [Pearg] IRTF Chair review of draft-irtf-pearg-censorship-06

["Dr. Joseph Lorenzo Hall" <[e-mail]>]

(affiliation for identification only; I work for ISOC but participate here in my personal capacity)

Hi Colin, in terms of RFC 5743 Section 2.1, you are referring to these three statements?

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5743.html#section-2.1

The following guidelines should be adhered to:

   o  There must be a statement in the abstract identifying it as the
      product of the RG.

   o  There must be a paragraph near the beginning (for example, in the
      introduction) describing the level of support for publication.
      Example text might read: "this document represents the consensus
      of the FOOBAR RG" or "the views in this document were considered
      controversial by the FOOBAR RG but the RG reached a consensus that
      the document should still be published".

   o  The breadth of review the document has received must also be
      noted.  For example, was this document read by all the active
      research group members, only three people, or folks who are not
      "in" the RG but are expert in the area?

Thank you!


--

JLH, Internet Society, [e-mail]
________________________________
From: Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 12:29
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: IRTF Chair review of draft-irtf-pearg-censorship-06

The PEARG chairs have requested that draft-irtf-pearg-censorship-06 be published as an RFC on the IRTF stream. The IRTF publication process is described in RFC 5743, and comprises a review by the IRSG to ensure technical and editorial quality, followed by a check by the IESG to ensure the work does not conflict with IETF standards activities.

As IRTF Chair, I perform an initial review of all drafts submitted for publication on the IRTF stream before sending them for detailed review by the IRSG. This note provides my review comments, for discussion.

Authors, please can you also respond to this message to confirm that all necessary IPR disclosures, as described on https://irtf.org/policies/ipr,  have been made?

Result: Ready with nits

RFC 5743 compliance: The draft does not follow the guidelines in RFC 5743

Comments:

Firstly, apologies for my slow review. This is a well written document that addresses an important topic.

I noticed one minor procedural matter that needs addressing: the statements required by RFC 5743 section 2.1 are missing in the Abstract and Introduction. The draft will require an update to add these before it can move forward.

I also had two questions for discussion, which may or may not require changes to the draft:

There are two places where specific censorship products are mentioned, along with citations of their use (SmartFilter in §3 and §4.2.1, NetSweeper in §4.2.1). Given that the set of such products changes over time, and is likely to become rapidly obsolete, I wonder if the draft might better just list the classes of products and leave the specifics to the cited sources?

§4.2.3: “Note that TLS 1.3 acts as a security component of QUIC” – do the differences in the way TLS integrates with QUIC affect censorship as described in this draft?


Colin Perkins
IRTF Chair