Subject: Re: [hrpc] New Version Notification for draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-00.txt

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 14:48:44 +0200

Hi Avri,

We're working hard on resolving some of these questions and making a big
review. Much of the work can be followed in realtime here:
https://github.com/nllz/IRTF-HRPC/blob/master/draft-research.md

Some replies inline to your email while I was drafting:

On 04/04/2016 09:52 PM, avri doria wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I did a read through but have not had a chance to write up the comments
> in a legible manner.
> 
> These are some general comments
> 
> - the discussion centers around general behaviors and there is very
> little discussion of protocol element.

Will take this into account while re-writing. I am also trying to focus
on which behavior a protocol allows and disallows (or even stimulates).
I think that is inherent part of the protocols

> 
> - Many of the effects seem more related to IP issues (e.g. visible SRC &
> DST) than to elements of the specific protocol itself. 

IP is also a protocol, right?

> In a sense they
> seem to be larger architectural issues (also a part of the RG's work) as
> opposed to protocol issues. 

Not sure if it is either/or.

> But they are not broken out that way. 
> Might be worth differentiating between the architectural issues and the
> protocol issues.

Have been thinking about this and having a hard time coming up with a
clear difference between the two. Would you have suggestions that can
help us further?

> 
> - Much on the comment of the protocols is more about how people can
> misuse the protocols and not abut protocol elements that enable bad or
> good behavior. 
> 
> - also, so much of the discussion seems to circle around implementation
> and not the protocols themselves.
> 

Will try to add more concrete protocol examples, but I think there are
also a lot of examples that show how protocol design allows for misuse,
I think that should also be addressed at protocol level (as for instance
done in html2)

> - I think the discussion needs to take some of the work that is going
> into protecting these protocols into account (e.g. HTTP -> HTTPS). The
> draft did this for P2P but not for many of other discussions.
> 

Working on it.

> - much of the discussion focuses on privacy elements, which are already
> covered and not on other aspects of FoE and FoA.  Ie. something is a
> problem because the lack of privacy affects the FoE or FoA.  This is 
> good point, but is it specific to the protocols? 
> 

Working on it.

> - I think the consideration questions at the end are good questions, but
> I am not sure I see how they all come from the issues discussion in many
> cases.  Might be good to link questions to specifics discussed earlier
> in the draft.
> 

Working on it.

> Sorry to be so last minute and somewhat less than fully coherent about
> these.
> 

They're great and very useful. Always happy to discuss.

Best,

Niels

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 10:29:20 -0400

Point of order: should we reivew the 00 document or is there a
readable version in the repo we should look at? (i.e., if you could
transform a working copy of the md into txt that would be wonderful).
best, Joe

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
e: [email-masked], p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871

---

From: Jeroen van der Ham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 19:20:18 +0200

Hi Joe,
Md is the Markdown format, which is basically plain text. You can get the raw format here:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nllz/IRTF-HRPC/blob/master/draft-research.md

Jeroen. 

> On 04 May 2016, at 16:29, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 13:24:21 -0400

I'm aware of that. It would be good to build RFC txt too, if that's
not difficult (happy to craft a PR)

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 12:54:59 +0200

Hi Joe,

Sorry for the delay, there were some building issues, and as you know
kramdown-rfc2629 is not always as verbose as one wants to be :)

Please find a new version here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research/

Comment and questions on the list, suggestions also very much welcome as
pull requests here (preferably with a short describption in a mail to
the list):

Best,

Niels

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 08:02:24 -0700

Thanks a ton, Niels! I am way too familiar with vagaries of group
kramdown building... so very much appreciate this. More soon!