Subject: [hrpc] Adopting draft-tenoever-hrpc-association

From: Mallory Knodel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:04:26 +0300

Hi everyone,

According to the notes on 19 July, it looks like there was discussion
but not quite consensus on whether the working group should adopt
draft-tenoever-hrpc-association[1].

The next step is to take the discussion on adoption to the list. Please
weigh in with your views! I'm pasting relevant notes below.

-Mallory

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-association/

> See slide deck: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/slides-102-hrpc-slides-association-final-00>
> Changes overview: -removed discussion on Internet as association and 
> consequences -cleaned up conclusion -edited typos
> 
> Methodology: -Collect a number of cases. Ethonographical approach: 
> this overview does not aim to cover all possible ways in which
> people can collec.vely organize or reach out but rather cover typical
> uses -Analyze cases with theoretical framework
> 
> Conclusions: -see slides
> 
> Authors hope the edits resolve now previous comments. Is the
> Research Group ok with proceeding with adoption?
> 
> Wendy Seltzer: I didntfind the framing compelling to me, re 
> connection between protocols and association. level of abstraction 
> didnt see quite right. I shared comments on the list. But cant see 
> what could make it compelling, so I would not spend time to work on 
> it.
> 
> Stephane B:The HRPC has been less productive in the past few months. 
> We should make sure to focus on review work.
> 
> Avri: We are already reviewing 2 drafts. Adding a 3rd is too much 
> work? We will take the question to the list, since in the room there 
> is no sure answer?
> 
> Niels: I think we already did everything we were asked. What else 
> could be done? To answer Wendy: this draft has very similar approach 
> to RFC8280,that is the methodology. How would another level of 
> abstraction be possible? The level of abstraction is already in the 
> methodology we adopted.
> 
> Avri: Sounds good. I will check also with the list, but I think we 
> can move along, there are no actual objections.
-- 
Mallory Knodel
Head of Digital :: article19.org
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9  B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780

---

From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 13:09:17 -0400

Hi there,

Some ideas...

Have you attempted to analyze other internets and their protocols in
this context?  The most prominent is the rather vast global mobile
internet infrastructure based on 3GPP protocols?

Have you examined any of the considerable literature developed in the
80s and 90s about how internets based on more autonomous structures and
self organizing protocols like uunet, fidonet, etc facilitated the
considerable expansion of freedom of association at that time?  There
are many use cases at the time  how they facilitated regime change in
the former USSR.  The DARPA internet infrastructure until the mid-90s
was closed with all the end points well known and the traffic monitored. 

For naming systems, have you considered treating Bob Kahn's Handles
overlay "DNS" infrastructure at the DONA Foundation?  Bob as you may
know, developed created tcp/ip based on Louis Pouzin's protocol, then
rolled out the DARPA DNS platform, then DOI's in the 1990s to track
intellectual property, then expanded to the Handle system.  Much of the
world also now tags network objects using OIDs - which is another naming
system developed in the early 80s and widely used.  How do all of these
internet platforms further or enhance freedom of association?

Lastly, perhaps you could identify some of your human rights provisions
using draft-rutkowski-hrpc-hraas-00

thanks,
tony