Subject: IAB Call for review

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 15:26:54 -0700

Hello,

I submitted comments about draft-iab-filtering-considerations-06 on 
January 31 in response to a Call for review from the IAB [1].  The 
Call for review ended on February 26.  There hasn't been any message 
about the comments which were submitted.

Could the IAB please enlighten me about how the IAB Call for review works?

Thanks,
S. Moonesamy

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg12390.html

---

From: Alejandro Acosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 21:26:32 -0430

Hi,

El 2/25/2014 8:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter escribió:
> Hi,

> The technical content of the draft seems good to me, but
> I'm a bit worried that in a year or two, we'll hear some
> governments saying "Oh sure, we're blocking Facebook and
> YouTube; we're fully conformant to RFC7xxx from the Internet
> Architecture Board."

Very late reply but I have to say it.
I couldn't agree more with Brian's comment.

>   Brian

Alejandro,

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 23:24:13 -0700

Hi Alejandro,
>I couldn't agree more with Brian's comment.

A few months ago, after that draft was submitted, a country blocked 
tweeter.  A country which is politically correct does not block 
sites; it filters them.  The filtering can be done using technical 
means or legal means.  You can get 
https://twitter.com/aikaterine7/status/436479990390325248 if you are 
at school.  Some people in a country claimed that the filtering which 
was implemented is conformant with the standards set by a charity 
(from another country).

In future those who speak with authority [1] will have to decide what 
to do about all this.  I don't know whether that future is a year or a decade.

Sometimes it is worthwhile to say it.  It's nice to see that you did 
that. :-)  By the way, the draft has IAB Consensus.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. This is directed at anyone

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 11:17:50 +0100

On Monday, May 26, 2014, S Moonesamy wrote:

>
> In future those who speak with authority [1] will have to decide what to
> do about all this.  I don't know whether that future is a year or a decade.

Who have services' authority or responsibility should always
consider and decide for safety/privacy and the draft is very important to
help those future decisions.

> Sometimes it is worthwhile to say it.  It's nice to see that you did that.
> :-)  By the way, the draft has IAB Consensus.

The draft  is only considerations not practices/decisions, so I don't agree
with some comments in this thread, the draft publication reason is clear
and IAB should publish it for better future standards or even better
bookFaces.

---

From: Alejandro Acosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 09:28:03 -0430

Hi SM,

El 5/26/2014 1:54 AM, S Moonesamy escribió:
> tweeter.  A country which is politically correct does not block sites;
> it filters them.  The filtering can be done using technical means or
> legal means.  

  Uhhh, I think the concept of politically correct can be argue.., but I
won't do that.
  The reason of my comment is based in what I support (Internet freedom)
and the fact that my country (Venezuela) has been blocking certain sites
during the last year.
  I guess most people won't realize what is to live in a country where
many websites are blocked, where many IP addresses can not be reach and
where certain domains can not resolved.
  Maybe some people would immediately think in VPNs and changing the
computers DNSs but it only works for a VERY VERY small part of the
population, the reality is that most people won't still have access to
the blocked websites.
  If you are a technical person and something goes wrong you will doubt
if what you are trying to do is blocked or not. If you are a regular
users entering a "normal" website and it fails, you will think that this
websites has also been blocked (and it's temporary failure of the
website/path).

>You can get
> https://twitter.com/aikaterine7/status/436479990390325248 if you are at
> school.  Some people in a country claimed that the filtering which was
> implemented is conformant with the standards set by a charity (from
> another country).

I got it.

> that. :-)  By the way, the draft has IAB Consensus.

  Nowadays when I travel I have to say that one of the things that I
most enjoy is surfing with no restrictions :)
  In somehow I support blocking certain content in Internet such as
child pornography and illegal stuff selling but It's extremely ugly
blocking content which has information, news & opinion of the people.

> S. Moonesamy

  Sorry if I ended a little bit off-topic.

Thanks,

Alejandro,

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 08:19:10 -0700

Hi Alejandro,
>   Uhhh, I think the concept of politically correct can be argue.., but I

Ok.

>and the fact that my country (Venezuela) has been blocking certain sites

I understood that on reading your previous message. :-)

>where certain domains can not resolved.

Agreed.

>population, the reality is that most people won't still have access to

Yes.

>websites has also been blocked (and it's temporary failure of the

Yes.

>most enjoy is surfing with no restrictions :)

It's only when a person has experienced the restrictions that he or 
she appreciates that.  For what it is worth I have encountered some 
restrictions.  Some entity could argue that it is in line with the 
IAB recommendation if I report the problem.  I support your position 
on this draft.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 10:14:08 -0400

SM:

Please see RFC 4845. IAB Stream RFCs are seen as documents that speak 'for the IAB'.

Note that Step 5 in Section 3 says that the IAB Chair will call for comments. Then, comments received are considered for integration into the document.  The IAB shall determine whether the document is ready for publication based on the comments received, or whether another round of document editing and, optionally, a further call for input is required.

In practice, any significant feedback, beyond nits, is brought to the IAB for discussion.

Hope this helps.

Russ

On May 24, 2014, at 6:26 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I submitted comments about draft-iab-filtering-considerations-06 on January 31 in response to a Call for review from the IAB [1].  The Call for review ended on February 26.  There hasn't been any message about the comments which were submitted.
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 07:54:06 -0700

> In practice, any significant feedback, beyond nits, is brought to the IAB for discussion.

To distinguish between formalities and practicalities:  A long-term
issue with the process has been that it really does proceed as you've
described.

On the average, what is missing is diligent, public iteration with the
folks making comments.

Note the innovative aspects of Pete Resnick's draft on Rough Consensus.
 Separate from the formality of requiring RC, there is an explicit focus
on the importance of dealing with issues that are raised.

Having the closed IAB do that dealing only internally is an open-loop
process; it lacks any clear mechanism for converging on, or validating,
that the concerns have been dealt with sufficiently.

The IAB mandate gives it the authority to do what you describe.

However the long-demonstrated benefits of open community review mean
that it is not merely a mechanism for garnering comments, but rather one
for engaging with those making the comments.

This means that it is worth the IAB's considering more sustained, public
interaction about the issues folk raise.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 09:01:21 -0700

Hi Russ,
At 07:14 27-05-2014, Russ Housley wrote:
>Note that Step 5 in Section 3 says that the IAB Chair will call for 
>comments. Then, comments received are considered for integration 
>into the document.  The IAB shall determine whether the document is 
>ready for publication based on the comments received, or whether 
>another round of document editing and, optionally, a further call 
>for input is required.
>

Thanks for the helpful explanation.

I received feedback from (IAB) editors when I commented about some 
IAB documents.  I found it helpful as I got a better understanding of 
the document.  It also provides a sense of whether the editors 
understood my comments.  There isn't much of an incentive to write a 
review when there isn't any feedback.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy