Subject: Re: [hrpc] new version draft-tenoever-hrpc-politica

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:46:00 +0100

Hi Stephane,

Better late then never, here we go:

On 02/22/2018 12:20 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:14:17PM +0100,
>  Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]> wrote 
>  a message of 35 lines which said:
> 
>> Here is a new version of draft-tenoever-hrpc political, based on review
>> of discussions during IETF100 as well discussions on-list and two
>> off-list threads.
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tenoever-hrpc-political-03
> 
> Although better, this document still seems to me too vague. It is not
> clear for the reader what's the goal. Section 10 makes the purpose
> much clearer, but I suggest to summarize it right from the start,
> otherwise some readers will drop reading before the end. I suggest to
> add in the abstract "This document claims that we should acknowledge
> there is politics in standards, and I-D should be evaluated, among
> other things, in that light" (yes, it spoils, but this is a research
> draft, not a movie).

Fully agree; rewrite for -05:

This document argues that the politics of standards need to be taken
into account in the standards development process. We come to this
conclusion by mapping different perspectives on the relation between
standards and politics in the Internet community and by providing
illustrations of the political aspects of standard development.

> 
> More specifically:
> 
> * the draft sometimes say "protocol" and sometimes "standards". Are
> they used as synonyms? If so, why, for instance, the title talks about
> standards and the abstract about protocols?

Addressed in -05
> 
> * section 3 has a lot of overlap with RFC 8280. Should it be replaced
> by a reference to section 4 of RFC 8280?
> 

You mean the outline of positions? I think the part of overview in
RFC8280 is an overview of position in scientific literature, whereas
these are positions found in the IETF.

> Editorial:
> 
> * "one interpretation of [RFC7258] is that pervasive monitoring is an
> "attack" in the narrow sense" I'm confused here, I was not able to
> find what is this "narrow sense". Is it a reference to section 2? If
> so, it is unclear.
> 

'narrow sense' removed.

> * "Politics is the process of making decisions applying to all members
> of a group" I would replace "a group" by "a diverse group, with
> conflicting interests". It is much easier to reach decisions, if
> people are close, and have similar interests (one can argue this is
> why there was no explicit discussion of politics at the beginning of
> the Network Working Group: stakeholders were much more homogeneous at
> this time).
> 

Accepted!

Thanks!