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

[Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>]

Yes - thanks!
Colin


On 2 Dec 2022, at 18:30, Dr. Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:

> (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