Subject: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-research-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2016 09:27:46 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Human Rights Protocol Considerations of the IETF.

        Title           : Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations
        Authors         : Niels ten Oever
                          Corinne Cath
	Filename        : draft-irtf-hrpc-research-01.txt
	Pages           : 68
	Date            : 2016-10-09

Abstract:
   This document provides a proposal for a vocabulary to discuss the
   relation between human rights and Internet protocols, an overview of
   the discussion in technical and academic literature and communities,
   a proposal for the mapping of the relation between human rights and
   technical concepts, and a proposal for guidelines for human rights
   considerations, similar to the work done on the guidelines for
   privacy considerations [RFC6973].

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force
   (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research
   and development activities.  This documents aims to be a consensus
   document of the Human Rights Protocol Consideration Research Group of
   the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF).

   Discussion of this draft at: [email-masked] //
   https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-hrpc-research/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-hrpc-research-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-hrpc-research-01

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:13:28 +0200

On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 09:27:46AM -0700,
 [email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote 

> 	Filename        : draft-irtf-hrpc-research-01.txt

IMHO, it is more or less ready for a Last Call in this group. We do
not try to have an important protocol on the Standards Track, which
would require a perfect document. We are trying to document something
which was never explicit before, the fact that apparently technical
decisions have consequences for human rights. IMHO, this is more
important than trying to have a perfect RFC. I suggest we worked on it
long enough. Stephen Farrell's remarks
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hrpc/H3AXTCsaiRywi9E0gFTWEP0Q5fc>
were good and interesting but I do not think they are a pre-requisite
for the Last Call.

However, I would be glad if some issues were really addressed. For
instance, I still do not find a clear definition of "public space"
(this is related to the dDoS discussion), despite
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hrpc/YXQT6jWxSwngxiWNZG6spcrfjMM>,
the text about script encoding is still unclear despite
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hrpc/6Kd4C7VYua_IOYQ8wzYRdGhzKXQ>...

---

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 12:09:53 +0200

Hi,

Thanks to Niels & Corinne for the edited version.  I am still in the
process of reading the revision.

I too am inclined to start the RGLC real soon now, but wanted to give
people a chance to read and comment first.  Plan to take some sort of
action next week on this. I tend to believe that this is not something
we need to rush on, but also not something we should dally with.  And
while Stephen review is not a gating factor, it does seem appropriate
that his comments were responded to before moving on.

As for the issue you bring up, I assume you are not asking that the RG
deal with this before the RGLC.

thanks
avri

On 14-Oct-16 17:13, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [email-masked]

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 16:59:30 +0200

Hi Stephane,

Reply inline:

> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hrpc/YXQT6jWxSwngxiWNZG6spcrfjMM>,

Have been puzzling with this, removing public space seemed the easiest
way out, without getting into a new rabbit hole. What I have now is:

All of these issues seem to suggest that the IETF should try to ensure
that their protocols cannot be used for DDoS attacks, which is
consistent with the long-standing IETF consensus that DDoS is an attack
that protocols should mitigate them to the extent they can {{BCP72}}.
Decreasing the number of vulnerabilities in protocols and (outside of
IETF) the number of bugs in the network stacks of routers or computers
could address this issue. The IETF can clearly play a role in bringing
about some of these changes but the IETF cannot be expected to take a
positive stance on (specific) DDoS attacks, or create protocols to
enable some attacks and inhibit others. What the IETF can do is
critically reflect on its role in the development of the Internet, and
how this impacts the ability of people to excercise their human rights,
such as freedom of expression.

> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hrpc/6Kd4C7VYua_IOYQ8wzYRdGhzKXQ>...

Would this work:

Does your protocol have text strings that have to be understood or
entered by humans? Does your protocol allow Unicode encoded in UTF-8
only? If other character sets or encodings are allowed, does your
protocol mandate a proper tagging of the charset? Did you have a look at
{{RFC6365}}?

Cheers,

Niels