Subject: [hrpc] About draft-harkins-tls-dragonfly

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:40:58 +0100

If I'm correct, this draft, which is currently in the RFC Editor
Queue <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>, will be the
first RFC with an explicit "Human Rights Considerations" section.

But this section is questionable and I suggest that other people here
look at draft-harkins-tls-dragonfly-02 and tell me if I'm too rigid or
if there is indeed a problem. (No need to read the entire draft, which
includes complicated cryptography, just check section 9.)

---

From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 11:25:38 +0100 (CET)

Il 18 gennaio 2018 alle 10.40 Stephane Bortzmeyer ha scritto:

Queue , will be the

Well, "the government is continually growing bigger and more powerful and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control" seems to be the motivation for a lot of cryptographers and digital rights activists these days... In the end, I too am irked by the last paragraph of that section - but can you remove the author's personal views from a personal draft? Any "Human Rights Considerations" section will be inherently political, and as such, it will reflect the author's views and values (or the IETF's, if the draft becomes an IETF document - in that case, I would expect that section to change).

Ciao

--

Vittorio Bertola
Head of Policy & Innovation

Cell:

+39 348 7015022

Skype:

[email-masked]

Email:

[email-masked]

Twitter: @openexchange - Facebook: OpenXchange - Web: www.open-xchange.com

Open-Xchange AG, Rollnerstr. 14, 90408 Nuremberg, District Court Nuremberg HRB 24738
Managing Board: Rafael Laguna de la Vera, Carsten Dirks, Michael Knapstein
Chairman of the Board: Richard Seibt

European Office:
Open-Xchange GmbH, Olper Huette 5f, D-57462 Olpe, Germany, District Court Siegen, HRB 8718
Managing Director: Frank Hoberg

US Office:
Open-Xchange. Inc., 530 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, USA

Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system.

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:36:25 +0100

I knew Dan put this in a while ago, but I was not aware he kept it in!

Will send him an e-mail to ask whether he would accept some alternative language.

Best,

Niels

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:40:58AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

-- 

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint	   2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488  
                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:53:14 +0100

Unfortunately Dan informed me he will only make changes suggested by editor and IANA.

Best,

Niels

-- 

Niels ten Oever
Researcher and PhD Candidate
Datactive Research Group
University of Amsterdam

---

From: Shivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 12:03:19 -0500

>From the draft:
"The most fundamental of Human Rights is the right to protect oneself."

Not sure how the Editor suggests edits, but surely such a claim requires
some form of substantiation.

---

From: Corinne Cath <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:18:20 +0000

Interesting interpretation. I am pretty sure RFC8280 takes as its
authoritative source the UDHR + ICCPR, which in my recollection do not
include any "right to protect oneself" so not sure this can even be
considered a human rights consideration.

-- 
Corinne Cath
Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute

Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath
Email: [email-masked] & [email-masked]
Twitter: @C_Cath

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 12:20:59 -0500

> Unfortunately Dan informed me he will only make changes suggested by editor and IANA.

Given that it's in the Editor queue, I'm not too surprised at that
reaction.

This _might_ suggest, however, some input to the current RG work about
how to use this innovation.  What could be improved?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Corinne Cath <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:28:23 +0000

Silly question perhaps - but how does this work for the privacy
considerations? What happens if somebody's interpretation of privacy
clearly does not square with RFC6973?

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:16:20 -0500

> clearly does not square with RFC6973?

There are many people around the IETF who are interested directly in
privacy and catch these things during IETF LC.  Also, not every
document has a privacy considerations, and I think some of them were
imperfect early on.  Finally, people were worrying about privacy in
documents some time before an explicit privacy considerations section
was suggested; I'm not sure the same is true about human rights
considerations more generally.  (Also, many people have elaborate but
divergent views about what "rights" are; rarely is that true of
privacy, which is a more narrow concept.)

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:35:08 -0900

> how to use this innovation.  What could be improved?

I gather that this document passed through the independent
submissions stream, which means that it is not required to
reflect IETF consensus.  That said, there was review of
the document prior to its having entered the publication queue
(although it doesn't turn up in the datatracker), and that
review (or those reviews) did not find a problem.  The
review process is probably a good place to start.

Melinda

-- 
Software longa, hardware brevis

PGP fingerprint: 795A 714B CD08 F996 AEFE
                 AB36 FE18 57E9 6B9D A293

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:27:31 +0100

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 09:35:08AM -0900,
 Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 86 lines which said:

> That said, there was review of the document prior to its having
> entered the publication queue (although it doesn't turn up in the
> datatracker), and that review (or those reviews) did not find a
> problem.  The review process is probably a good place to start.

I remember that it was discussed in Singapore: what about setting up
"something" for reviewing drafts about human rights, in the same way
there are reviews about security, routing, YANG, whatever? The IETF
being what it is, we don't need anyone's authorization, we can set it
up ourselves. If it works, we may in the future request some technical
support (being notified of drafts in Last Call, when there is one) and
something more "official", but it's not necessary at the start.

Anyone would be interested to volunteer for such an informal team? At
the beginning, it will be just a mailing list (or may be an issue
tracker on a Gitlab).