From nobody Fri Jan 5 13:11:51 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7706B12D893 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 13:11:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23pFy0edBaym for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 13:11:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [162.247.75.118]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5857712D885 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 13:11:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from fifthhorseman.net (unknown [38.109.115.130]) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C6217F99D for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 16:11:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E6034204FC; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:02:28 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: hrpc@irtf.org Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 15:02:25 -0500 Message-ID: <87incg9ir2.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Ross Anderson on "What goes around comes around" X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 21:11:50 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi HRPC folks-- Ross Anderson has some discussion about the connection between Internet architecture and human rights in =E2=80=9CPrivacy in the Modern Age: the Se= arch for Solutions=E2=80=9D, which was published in 2015. from his blog https://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2018/01/03/what-goes-around-comes-aroun= d/ > My book chapter explores this topic. What do the architecture of the > Internet, and the network effects of the information industries, mean > for politics in the longer term, and for human rights? The full (quite short) chapter is here: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/Papers/WhatGoesAround.pdf His take revolves around questions of nationalism, and focuses on American decision-making in particular. Regards, --dkg --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEDuW+l5KC2AufdUDxzNLtlNIXOekFAlpP2dEACgkQzNLtlNIX OelJfg/+Jf8SVSXpEhZUfW8iNcY44/lK6GVt1K0V8yW4TruHCEJ9VU20Ca2l8Neh wdKtIf29Wv7CsTSOlTMfWZcCDb9tiOlS59e67eHHhd5RXa8jFutD1PLY09WB7+FK t2ufLg9LBZo/z6pVXmwJWBAofJn6wt/KkZKJ2dMkI8uhIRBEr3Q3BRgnjIUoSzIP rilWNtpEFrbcoNV41k9O/LWiuN1JPFq+FH6EYttit/JIbbXCEBW490Bs0Q53oerZ j/oQbfFFUl/c5dPrpv+NxaQ8UOWJou0YL6BQRS8GbziV+vm+Ssjp6BcwJzB9rnZE VkK2LNMBVtV2jMkCA2/ovHXEYo8LTrvhDNR673Fw3lyNe2t43TfsAG22xW+5Jz+g sduT3ew0kzyPOr9HOo+HMb+qWrxpbFwpqBxIwjhjUPJOQe3JolsU3bhZ/bCGqaNp zNKG+Eb1Y/CI6/bf6UA+MSmCB1W6NJaoIwppKD3/UuSI8mENPAe06NI/lPNP2nQl oBi8SRhnFC7N0tZwJHJ/LHreSvBRDKiizMpcd0cQgjBb65J4MOkDY3S0rtRaJcSE SfTTxE1ufIV9BIVy+oANqhD9UWDvWXVNvyIeMOjDWiABhWsDDYvKG7Zv2hERBfoj PImwX8DX6K5OcYeohl9Gr36EbPkyXM2OWJVIFBYrZ+FTkWWaTBM= =kMkX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Mon Jan 8 00:42:07 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 576C2126DFF for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 00:42:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZYF5QKJRrCf3 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 00:42:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3E13124234 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 00:42:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eYT0J-000675-Ux for hrpc@irtf.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 09:42:00 +0100 To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <151045517729.30792.2776501800657246631.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5526cbbc-01a8-b19c-f7cc-7c9d66a90847@article19.org> <20171117012312.GA3363@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> From: Mallory Knodel Message-ID: <28e5ba39-2ff9-5643-6596-6f2342e8d12e@article19.org> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:41:50 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="fz8ZAax5MJWpm62i3mQ9hTHNOR6VJydHO" X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: 4868b52b90b9144be14ceb212c82ef23 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity-01.txt X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 08:42:05 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --fz8ZAax5MJWpm62i3mQ9hTHNOR6VJydHO Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="1109p8rTYudfOyvyfQRl2usWwdCwo79p3"; protected-headers="v1" From: Mallory Knodel To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <28e5ba39-2ff9-5643-6596-6f2342e8d12e@article19.org> Subject: Re: [hrpc] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity-01.txt References: <151045517729.30792.2776501800657246631.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5526cbbc-01a8-b19c-f7cc-7c9d66a90847@article19.org> <20171117012312.GA3363@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> In-Reply-To: --1109p8rTYudfOyvyfQRl2usWwdCwo79p3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 17/11/17 04:41 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 11/17/17 9:23 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> So, privacy is a sacrifice? >=20 > They're trading off the ability of CDNs to make good routing > decision with protecting user privacy, sacrificing the former. > I think it's reasonable to point out that providing additional > user privacy has some costs associated with it. (And fwiw I > think they made the right choice). Agree that there is often a trade off. But to the point that a phrase like "*sacrificing* on the side of privacy" plays into the general narrative that privacy is at odds with other values and nice things like privacy require sacrifice. An obvious antidote to the sacrifice narrative when privacy and another value require a trade off is to say that the other value requires a sacrifice of privacy. When the discussion is in the context of security, as in security values versus privacy (as a value), exploring the ways in which privacy is a form of security-- and a very important one!-- could be helpful. -Mallory --=20 Mallory Knodel Head of Digital :: article19.org gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 --1109p8rTYudfOyvyfQRl2usWwdCwo79p3-- --fz8ZAax5MJWpm62i3mQ9hTHNOR6VJydHO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJaUy7RAAoJEAwyonG9PMeAcnMH/0jHYnjbxU1IbljtzPIjOArV kJSfXRM/iDT5Boe9pikRT2Agu/spuGAm56jnjTd2IhhilQb8GaKLFHLYlQ6aER/N 9RhShYPhDp/i6pOjzRhDO1gkECmLjHYHVMkvpZHBfECKBI6voQzUrOLlCcC3NLxO n2+9ygZkXaM5QQ527VbfYJSqwnReevrMd6wwtEMT/ZXj7lfBsomj3dPZCyVRuWgs 3u+uXfEXwD9ngVEsPBUiMjNGK6Gh4dtZe8yCXC6+9sGZAyecOcIItty/opoMM1ty JHA6qzZGKmUZO81Mg0VW68MTTa3dkiVljNSH5OGAW1vTP8H0WLtt1VXA0nf3pGM= =2aQu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --fz8ZAax5MJWpm62i3mQ9hTHNOR6VJydHO-- From nobody Mon Jan 8 15:28:06 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD51F127275 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:27:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=nA3GBfIs; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=pMqKGwpi Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27JLgTeRgS_I for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:27:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD95C1271FD for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:27:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([197.226.49.134]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w08NRYum004279 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:27:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1515454067; x=1515540467; bh=Lx6PXYvTbktbu5cQHBX8zprIaYLsh0R+FUpPgcDvrdw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=nA3GBfIsw2pMyTkqdRNpJeEyDDoqqP0qeeCKUwb66n9dGTu6MEM1hv5WwvzvBoTH3 1rtgr2Tj720nYUjjX1F0Ru+w2+4CsOmtHfEp4AMrX6X+TIs5w/PoIowtXvu69veuk8 dDJqdir74ZC8XWBXro/npsj46Tw3h3+cL3+fTi7c= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1515454067; x=1515540467; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Lx6PXYvTbktbu5cQHBX8zprIaYLsh0R+FUpPgcDvrdw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=pMqKGwpipALniTtO6QdOWpkO6VX/3s2hYDcOKyE4MvpcaKwoPrsbUxmvHLV1IhueP PxWjV/ciCAHcVFUHU0N/e4UgQOmv5edt24oSjyDQJM8fZcW1ONlcQ3F2j0LkGzHE42 M/DcNu4R4ncstgKYbI1d7Y6nWxiYgPYkmk0Gxebc= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20180108132649.114ec2e0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 15:24:15 -0800 To: Niels ten Oever , Gisela Perez de Acha , hrpc@irtf.org From: S Moonesamy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Comments on draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 23:27:59 -0000 Hi Niels, Gisela, I have some comments on draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02. According to the Research Group Charter, one of its objectives is to "expose the relation between protocols and human rights". The research questions (Section 3) are about internet architecture and whether the internet is an assembly or association. That seems like stretching that objective. There is the following in Section 5: "The Internet is increasingly being used as a platform for protest". The platforms are usually social network services. The draft describes them as "closed and centralized Internet platforms" and argues that they are out of scope. Sometimes, some of those platforms are neutralized as they are viewed as causing internal issues. How will it look if the IETF advocated that? "the Internet has also played a crucial role by providing a means for the fast dissemination of information that was otherwise mediated by broadcast media ..." The internet has also been used to spread "fake news". It may be viewed as a significant problem when that affects the internal affairs of a country. A mailing list (Section 6.1.1) is not a protocol. What does version control (Section 6.2.2) have to do with protocols? There is the following in Section 6.4.2: "In order for edge-users to connect to the Internet ..." What is the meaning of "edge-users"? Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Tue Jan 9 10:12:54 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 481F7129966 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 10:12:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=UKYto91q; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=ZBht/fgs Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4ZPxeOcRkKfG for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 10:12:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E75D412762F for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 10:12:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([197.226.214.194]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w09ICWW2024101 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Jan 2018 10:12:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1515521563; x=1515607963; bh=BtNjuXLXFN+GlH32olzHb+E50DvdU2ROgbH0Hy3ApPo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=UKYto91qpdRFdhsq9Hq51xk2rYhpI1G5Nhx1wph3YaUbh7Yv20JRYQEOsX1QBrwma uCrlbc7pQw9x6R81z8ZfNEcUXSB2V7AJyim/QKyZKhHe6+sMS4/4xCeWZR7UOEbB+p 0uOQ13kEmMEksC5ucLKPLfKO41XP42NiGbaBnv1E= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1515521563; x=1515607963; i=@elandsys.com; bh=BtNjuXLXFN+GlH32olzHb+E50DvdU2ROgbH0Hy3ApPo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=ZBht/fgs6vH8PkWUBDKrBZTfQeObrM7oLE7i/kVKV2ZGlOwkDwpuJMpgzf1Kf2mOz fAk3sAfBbbXnynd1imRtxrGIS29PA3xLIBG01HIt6qbni+w64YF7u4AlPelugGB84k k8sztS/TWozolrXEm7aQldKn0nT1U4IzzH8Y5ZDE= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20180109095740.0a12b1a0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 10:12:11 -0800 To: Mallory Knodel , hrpc@irtf.org From: S Moonesamy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Applying, testing and improving the guidelines X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 18:12:52 -0000 Hi Mallory, I read your message [1] about "applying, testing and improving the guidelines on rfc8280". Have you tried applying the guidelines in the IETF? Regards, S. Moonesamy 1. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hrpc/current/msg01104.html From nobody Tue Jan 9 23:25:51 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF404124D37 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 23:25:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G03ltZDQbe8U for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 23:25:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fece:1902]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F6CE124319 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 23:25:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 4AF8031D29; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:25:44 +0100 (CET) Received: by godin (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 98E33EC0AFC; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:20:53 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:20:53 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180110072053.GA15439@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Transport: UUCP rules X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 16.04 (xenial) X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] BGP and politics X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 07:25:50 -0000 Very good talk at the last Chaos Computer Club Meeting on "BGP and the rule of custom". The speaker rightly notes that "Protocols are, at their root, systems of governance" and explains very well how the BGP system work, and the relations between the operators, how to exclude a rogue one, etc. "Peerings between Tier-1 is a bit like marriages between wealthy families" https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-9072-bgp_and_the_rule_of_custom From nobody Wed Jan 10 01:46:46 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D07E5126B7F for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 01:46:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l-3kYJBQKNiS for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 01:46:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 745AA1241F8 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 01:46:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eZCxz-0006Uh-Eg for hrpc@irtf.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:46:39 +0100 To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <6.2.5.6.2.20180109095740.0a12b1a0@elandnews.com> From: Mallory Knodel Message-ID: <021d5c49-da76-e51c-849b-7f793a37ad7b@article19.org> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:46:37 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20180109095740.0a12b1a0@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: 76f3589a93270604ea078d468a2051b3 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Applying, testing and improving the guidelines X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:46:45 -0000 Hi, Three unrelated notes about the guidelines: I don't know if the guidelines draft "draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines-01" is fully ready to be put to use. It's not been adopted by the RG afaik. Lastly, it doesn't look like there's been any discussion of it on the list. There are some folks looking at IETF standards, and their larger WGs, against these guidelines. And they've got a good idea of the difficulty, necessary changes to guidelines and I'm sure a lot of insight at this poi= nt. I am not one of the people doing this work at this time. -Mallory On 09/01/18 09:12 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Mallory, >=20 > I read your message [1] about "applying, testing and improving the > guidelines on rfc8280".=C2=A0 Have you tried applying the guidelines in= the > IETF? >=20 > Regards, > S. Moonesamy >=20 > 1. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hrpc/current/msg01104.html >=20 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --=20 Mallory Knodel Head of Digital :: article19.org gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 From nobody Wed Jan 10 15:41:14 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@irtf.org Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC76120726; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:41:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Meeting Session Request Tool To: Cc: hrpc-chairs@ietf.org, avri@acm.org, hrpc@irtf.org, irtf-chair@irtf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.68.3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <151562767187.15823.7601682405390425419.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:41:11 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] hrpc - Update to a Meeting Session Request for IETF 101 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 23:41:12 -0000 An update to a meeting session request has just been submitted by Avri Doria, a Chair of the hrpc working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Human Rights Protocol Considerations Area Name: IRTF Session Requester: Avri Doria Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2 Hours Number of Attendees: 80 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: quic httpbis saag dnsop Second Priority: irtfopen Third Priority: gaia People who must be present: Avri Doria Niels ten Oever Resources Requested: Special Requests: Preferably Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday and not Friday. --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Thu Jan 11 12:30:55 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73E8F12EC3A for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:30:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=opendkim.org header.b=0MXazsHN; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=elandsys.com header.b=3xgKaE83 Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jzo6Que-xWgP for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:30:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99EF712D864 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:30:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([197.224.151.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0BKUPBU009265 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:30:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1515702643; x=1515789043; bh=sXZiqHlabvtehuuIVUPpv3WilROfIDMeP6e3s6gw1fM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=0MXazsHNMz3RGzvnBn+R9fBUID5N1BJ+Pm42N9e8Skt7LGs46OxR0rmTOHg3EH2C8 9koovUvmkVmqK4s1fASN8kSUgvq7kReFjDIzZ8Jq/zDZXUx1EySTgXO3RYJmsfCwil e/lhOWOjOjGyy0n/Egs2nanWYxdmhHgXcLernRUo= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1515702643; x=1515789043; i=@elandsys.com; bh=sXZiqHlabvtehuuIVUPpv3WilROfIDMeP6e3s6gw1fM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=3xgKaE83UtqccjsuCQ+7Z3xC/GWs/yPe7a2um5dhRjgGOYmHk6EVR8eIm9lMA0+9E +JCpumzL8tW3iZe7dKYA1YjyE8wqRFu7xGXLD/vrLlZdtmMiMzHvvV43AzrPeFLFVV eUGNI2v0Wx7U0urglKgXJMl5SmOO1691NYAtEwC8= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20180111122247.0f234940@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:30:06 -0800 To: Mallory Knodel From: S Moonesamy Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Applying, testing and improving the guidelines X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 20:30:52 -0000 Hi Mallory, >Three unrelated notes about the guidelines: I don't know if the >guidelines draft "draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines-01" is fully ready to >be put to use. It's not been adopted by the RG afaik. Lastly, it doesn't >look like there's been any discussion of it on the list. > >There are some folks looking at IETF standards, and their larger WGs, >against these guidelines. And they've got a good idea of the difficulty, >necessary changes to guidelines and I'm sure a lot of insight at this point. > >I am not one of the people doing this work at this time. I thought that you were referring to the RFC. Sorry about that. Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Thu Jan 11 22:32:12 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90965126CE8 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:32:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D1U8VJNSTAED for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:32:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A4B212D7F8 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:32:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eZssm-0005yl-0p; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 07:32:04 +0100 To: S Moonesamy Cc: hrpc@irtf.org References: <6.2.5.6.2.20180111122247.0f234940@elandnews.com> From: Mallory Knodel Message-ID: <0f243795-faa5-62d4-e422-3d3152ce01fb@article19.org> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:32:00 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20180111122247.0f234940@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: a350ae07b5350cdad28cef237d2e7179 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Applying, testing and improving the guidelines X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 06:32:11 -0000 Hi, On 11/01/18 11:30 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: >> Three unrelated notes about the guidelines: I don't know if the >> guidelines draft "draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines-01" is fully ready to >> be put to use. It's not been adopted by the RG afaik. Lastly, it doesn= 't >> look like there's been any discussion of it on the list. >> >> There are some folks looking at IETF standards, and their larger WGs, >> against these guidelines. And they've got a good idea of the difficult= y, >> necessary changes to guidelines and I'm sure a lot of insight at this >> point. >> >> I am not one of the people doing this work at this time. >=20 > I thought that you were referring to the RFC.=C2=A0 Sorry about that. In a way draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines-01 does relate to the RFC afaik because it is a document that intends to be more precise and easier to apply to IETF standards than the RFC itself, -Mallory --=20 Mallory Knodel Head of Digital :: article19.org gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 From nobody Fri Jan 12 14:31:16 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 231031271DF for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:31:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=opendkim.org header.b=bgqUYjTH; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=elandsys.com header.b=ICSgpgp5 Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C5zdHK_C64E7 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:31:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E94AF126E01 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:31:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([197.224.151.71]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0CMUsms009531 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:31:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1515796266; x=1515882666; bh=atBg+NgH/SyB22NDz+1VZ3UoWx1vDlh3DSwAkQ5AJTo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=bgqUYjTHMEb2bRDsA4IYQZ/87Oy599vu4Gil0yJho5IL3J2XYqfzKmfDMq0wTiGBy JmplTmBmPgjoOzls+WuAaCm40Fq+SEhLan5qfHeK16uytwsjkkEWdRw94nblJMKizL NO6Cfkc14CtY+q/DlyoUCn+X9DGKrEAdE3Xc+Ec4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1515796266; x=1515882666; i=@elandsys.com; bh=atBg+NgH/SyB22NDz+1VZ3UoWx1vDlh3DSwAkQ5AJTo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ICSgpgp5hs3I/6Tjd5eepduICcTroW8pSJB4HQAWUZ2YVbfRelcjd3J5t9ENymZHK WEkyVHrgXi9X2mcByMGnHi9AZtDqQJEImmqgihwKjmg71j9owjeCNqVA3xDXy80Tc0 /8PlNl0sNELEl9CxpIuHk/NeXJvfkAob6a8UXElw= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20180112131332.109f3e40@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:30:41 -0800 To: Mallory Knodel From: S Moonesamy Cc: hrpc@irtf.org In-Reply-To: <0f243795-faa5-62d4-e422-3d3152ce01fb@article19.org> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20180111122247.0f234940@elandnews.com> <0f243795-faa5-62d4-e422-3d3152ce01fb@article19.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Applying, testing and improving the guidelines X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 22:31:14 -0000 Hi Mallory, At 10:32 PM 11-01-2018, Mallory Knodel wrote: >In a way draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines-01 does relate to the RFC afaik >because it is a document that intends to be more precise and easier to >apply to IETF standards than the RFC itself, First of all, thank you for the reply. I do not have any expertise in social sciences. It would be useful for a person reviewing the draft to have some expertise of that and some experience of technical topics discussed in the draft. A person would have to do advocacy in order to apply or test the guidelines. Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Mon Jan 15 04:27:22 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70467128D2E for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 04:27:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TWdw0PmAjpL4 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 04:27:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wr0-x230.google.com (mail-wr0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 389D81200F1 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 04:27:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr0-x230.google.com with SMTP id o7so11461758wro.8 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 04:27:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=qBpvIax5uQb9POpi10FiZ321MC24yPRSy99x9vLSdiQ=; b=XFZAy0s+8/6eSGTUN11WD1Mer8tVG2wPks6ycHdDiUm5gGZFkOiEGoa3WdNDnmjdRQ xT9dljgODCqQ6KD76ldG9yfO5GqevlRLOkenw06nH58OoY6Pm+jAr2rHzicR8M8vzG6a X5Gutd8hCmggS20D5YJ5brG/GueILT/TbkK11qa3fVFslwRPfJeqMeEAFbSzNReyDiHv AIepaM8v8jlTSiLDGQ63898ZJROnRRp+anC1XozZZFiJMca2vDE/pQ5Il/cV6aBtumg6 Su198Wj7MBFBKRp35ojRxr3EkurJGtHceWP90jgpf7z2yT1/y7ZVSqCS9kRrSkCC1z7P eY8A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qBpvIax5uQb9POpi10FiZ321MC24yPRSy99x9vLSdiQ=; b=l8kbz4TGso/JUUbwGYsKFK+cWgaTayO0+y3/GAiszJ1Bi5hWwVOVhNpsHIc9aSS13o Jy5jE4KhRYhYV2tWc2EfwC2FPCVzd3YaTE3l6ZIVs9vqwwWZr8rXrcMbQhTE0D5BpUOH ZNwWW1+m1X4NEdIPUrk0yXUqHolf7C9EeYX6FIrVioCpFM05Mhehlo7SYiFX51p2WQYb 8g7CPEqShQUyhZsRvnrYigum/pzxrC9HAXORNlNMMjpOpdJe3tNCnWU9jdHLwaGJJ81S 85F2X3Q3FsCdUxn/dnKFPPQz/XBbEXqFdBP6xZmajuccymZ4OM+dmkH009Jnng9tMWW/ LZ4g== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfUs5wIe/YcBGsaWuvAxwCxCMJK8NBi5SGjoSYpP008akIu7ur0 Jl+FXLTgbGroEwmqCMPx3f7QT4Mm8nwhxaM14/k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBoshbJt2XWhf3c/p1L9qiKFZ4qa5CkCfJlLUOVO+u190LE9vTrD0cWNKnAu9dM94yjtoO46mnp+koW0Zeok6qNc= X-Received: by 10.223.144.195 with SMTP id i61mr1061979wri.73.1516019237718; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 04:27:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: cattekwaad@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.198.134 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 04:26:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20180112131332.109f3e40@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20180111122247.0f234940@elandnews.com> <0f243795-faa5-62d4-e422-3d3152ce01fb@article19.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20180112131332.109f3e40@elandnews.com> From: Corinne Cath Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 12:26:37 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: SSl4ISA8suPyOzzmsrbPgxj-klM Message-ID: To: S Moonesamy Cc: Mallory Knodel , hrpc@irtf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c06b43e2329c20562cfbc6d" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Applying, testing and improving the guidelines X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 12:27:21 -0000 --94eb2c06b43e2329c20562cfbc6d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi all, I am not entirely sure why the guidelines would require social science/advocacy expertise perse. I think anyone who is interested in what the potential impact of their work is can pick up the RFC and apply or test the guidelines. The more eyes the better I would say! best, On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:30 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Mallory, > At 10:32 PM 11-01-2018, Mallory Knodel wrote: > >> In a way draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines-01 does relate to the RFC afaik >> because it is a document that intends to be more precise and easier to >> apply to IETF standards than the RFC itself, >> > > First of all, thank you for the reply. I do not have any expertise in > social sciences. It would be useful for a person reviewing the draft to > have some expertise of that and some experience of technical topics > discussed in the draft. A person would have to do advocacy in order to > apply or test the guidelines. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > -- Corinne Cath Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath Email: ccath@turing.ac.uk & corinnecath@gmail.com Twitter: @C_Cath --94eb2c06b43e2329c20562cfbc6d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,

I am not entirely sure why the guidelines would re= quire social science/advocacy expertise perse. I think anyone who is intere= sted in what the potential impact of their work is can pick up the RFC and = apply or test the guidelines. The more eyes the better I would say!

be= st,

On= Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:30 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com= > wrote:
Hi Mallory,
At 10:32 PM 11-01-2018, Mallory Knodel wrote:
In a way draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines-01 does relate to the RFC afai= k
because it is a document that intends to be more precise and easier to
apply to IETF standards than the RFC itself,

 First of all, thank you for the reply.=C2=A0 I do not have any expertise in= social sciences.=C2=A0 =C2=A0It would be useful for a person reviewing the= draft to have some expertise of that and some experience of technical topi= cs discussed in the draft.=C2=A0 A person would have to do advocacy in orde= r to apply or test the guidelines.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc



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

We= b: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath
Email: ccath@turing.ac.uk & corinnecath@gmail.comTwitter: @C_Cath
--94eb2c06b43e2329c20562cfbc6d-- From nobody Mon Jan 15 05:51:40 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5DCC12D574 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 05:51:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=lSLUFYi2; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=s7gFdA/P Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WuJMcsPvK-Oq for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 05:51:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32AB312D0C3 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 05:51:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([197.224.151.71]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0FDpJ1U026906 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 15 Jan 2018 05:51:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1516024291; x=1516110691; bh=Mcv3evpXUbNvRwiZ11OPP6H0qnlEHfGA1/Cad6WZMY4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=lSLUFYi2R1xqx+MG+kJMUvN8a3KSgu1kGTeUnvfb/q8aB0tJxnyOLcn62hcs0UzdF j6NCc1O2RjxvvJNSuc82oWT15KyL9H5vZvE1bZeWXu2FjrElAGZ6rjHeBszlw3wHYi lHLJw++M/Etur5U++k0rDOB9/fDVUFf7Zq3h6prs= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1516024291; x=1516110691; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Mcv3evpXUbNvRwiZ11OPP6H0qnlEHfGA1/Cad6WZMY4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=s7gFdA/PluWZdNF4jLwfEellxXL/2rIlCBVclikpL3iVo/gVNMdQbiaZ/6hSZ9Dad vlKphFVv/CUSUImTYMLWQAXlMbtNtPjSf16X3uHo11l/YLpPQB1fhhR97Uw5Jka9Zv jt6krNHDZ9p5Ae3ZqxwCw2C9QxiYoDDCcXglSnig= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20180115051417.11a4b428@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 05:51:05 -0800 To: Corinne Cath , hrpc@irtf.org From: S Moonesamy Cc: Mallory Knodel In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20180111122247.0f234940@elandnews.com> <0f243795-faa5-62d4-e422-3d3152ce01fb@article19.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20180112131332.109f3e40@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Applying, testing and improving the guidelines X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:51:39 -0000 Hi Corinne, At 04:26 AM 15-01-2018, Corinne Cath wrote: >I am not entirely sure why the guidelines would require social >science/advocacy expertise perse. I think anyone who is interested >in what the potential impact of their work is can pick up the RFC >and apply or test the guidelines. The more eyes the better I would say! What kind of expertise is required to provide advice about the potential impact? I'll try and explain the "advocacy" part in a different manner. Let's say that I have a strong interest in human rights. Wouldn't there be better results if I tried to convince IETF RFC authors of the merits of taking the potential impact into consideration? Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Mon Jan 15 09:16:48 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8418B12EAD6 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:16:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.254 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.254 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nkn1NS8Dj4Lc for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:16:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0098.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F41FA12E8A0 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:14:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10894101981B3 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:14:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6176726940646F7269612E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 2, -10, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, avri@acm.org, :, RULES_HIT:41:152:355:379:599:800:854:960:967:973:988:989:1260:1263:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1381:1437:1513:1515:1516:1518:1521:1534:1542:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2194:2198:2199:2200:2376:2393:2525:2553:2566:2612:2682:2685:2731:2741:2859:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:2975:3000:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3154:3354:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4184:4250:4321:4361:4605:4860:5007:6117:6119:6248:7514:7652:7903:7904:7974:9010:9025:9040:9108:9388:9855:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11783:11914:12043:12291:12379:12438:12485:12663:12683:12740:12895:12903:13071:13137:13150:13153:13161:13228:13229:13230:13231:13846:14039:14095:14096:14106:14180:14181:14721:14879:21060:21080:21325:21326:21433:21451:21627:30022:30054:30056:30060:30066:30090:30091, 0, RBL:none, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, DomainCache:0, MSF:not bulk, SPF:, MSBL:0, DNSBL:n X-HE-Tag: use16_407e21bde6f2f X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3675 Received: from [198.18.11.78] (unknown [162.220.223.124]) (Authenticated sender: avri@doria.org) by omf03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:14:03 +0000 (UTC) Reply-To: avri@acm.org To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <6.2.5.6.2.20180111122247.0f234940@elandnews.com> <0f243795-faa5-62d4-e422-3d3152ce01fb@article19.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20180112131332.109f3e40@elandnews.com> From: avri doria Message-ID: <4b2b5ca6-be47-e3cf-afe5-0310d617ad0b@acm.org> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 12:14:02 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 180115-4, 01/15/2018), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Applying, testing and improving the guidelines X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:16:46 -0000 Hi, One reason I am interested in more expertise in this part is that I see the RFC 8280 as the strong statement of a hypothesis, and that now we have to demonstrate both its usefulness and its validity. For usefulness I see engineers and advocates as essential.=C2=A0 Are the questions useful, and is there evidence of improvement in the Internet. For scientific validity of the exercise, I think we need more social science knowledge in building the experiment, measurement and documentati= on. But of course I agree, the more eyes the better. Nonetheless some eyes of a particular sort might be really helpful in this research. avri On 15-Jan-18 07:26, Corinne Cath wrote: > Hi all, > > I am not entirely sure why the guidelines would require social > science/advocacy expertise perse. I think anyone who is interested in > what the potential impact of their work is can pick up the RFC and > apply or test the guidelines. The more eyes the better I would say! > > best, > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:30 PM, S Moonesamy > wrote: > > Hi Mallory, > At 10:32 PM 11-01-2018, Mallory Knodel wrote: > > In a way draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines-01 does relate to the > RFC afaik > because it is a document that intends to be more precise and > easier to > apply to IETF standards than the RFC itself, > > > First of all, thank you for the reply.=C2=A0 I do not have any > expertise in social sciences.=C2=A0 =C2=A0It would be useful for a = person > reviewing the draft to have some expertise of that and some > experience of technical topics discussed in the draft.=C2=A0 A pers= on > would have to do advocacy in order to apply or test the guidelines.= > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > > > > > --=20 > Corinne Cath > Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute > > Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath > > Email: ccath@turing.ac.uk & > corinnecath@gmail.com > Twitter: @C_Cath > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc From nobody Mon Jan 15 10:36:01 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30A9412EB43 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:36:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.254 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.254 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eq5H41WC9QfV for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:35:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0141.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.141]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EB6012EB40 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:35:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95D12837F243 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 18:35:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6176726940646F7269612E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 2, -13, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, avri@acm.org, ::, RULES_HIT:1:2:41:355:379:421:491:599:800:854:871:967:973:988:989:1000:1260:1313:1314:1345:1359:1381:1437:1516:1518:1575:1594:1605:1730:1747:1777:1792:1801:1963:2194:2198:2199:2200:2393:2525:2553:2565:2682:2685:2691:2692:2693:2731:2741:2829:2859:2902:2909:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4050:4184:4250:4362:4605:4860:5007:6117:6119:6506:6691:6747:6748:7281:7652:7875:7903:7909:8666:8828:9010:9025:9036:9108:9121:10848:11232:11233:11604:11658:11914:12043:12291:12379:12438:12663:12679:12683:12740:12895:12926:13018:13019:13137:13150:13151:13156:13161:13163:13228:13229:13230:13231:13846:14095:14096:14227:14658:14659:14877:21060:21067:21080:21324:21433:21627:30016:30029:30046:30054:30056:30060:30070:30083:30089, 0, RBL:none, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, DomainCache:0, MSF:not bulk, SPF:, MSBL:0, DN X-HE-Tag: house91_33ce78895cd21 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 10637 Received: from [198.18.11.78] (unknown [162.220.223.124]) (Authenticated sender: avri@doria.org) by omf03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 18:35:55 +0000 (UTC) Reply-To: avri@acm.org To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <757d5b93-bc4e-4dc7-aba3-0610480eab85@avris-iPad> <04ea7dbd-4a91-8ddb-5a53-fe165ee63b18@article19.org> From: avri doria Message-ID: <46ec0cab-bdf7-f24d-ea97-b13d892c86d4@acm.org> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:35:32 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="L9dA26PLRGD2l1C2EXh9s1mGiRgjkljEO" X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 180115-4, 01/15/2018), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] HRPC, next X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 18:36:00 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --L9dA26PLRGD2l1C2EXh9s1mGiRgjkljEO Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="iJZWhyvvvc6P1iCgDfjKXj4uDSnYLoPMO"; protected-headers="v1" From: avri doria Reply-To: avri@acm.org To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <46ec0cab-bdf7-f24d-ea97-b13d892c86d4@acm.org> Subject: Re: [hrpc] HRPC, next References: <757d5b93-bc4e-4dc7-aba3-0610480eab85@avris-iPad> <04ea7dbd-4a91-8ddb-5a53-fe165ee63b18@article19.org> In-Reply-To: --iJZWhyvvvc6P1iCgDfjKXj4uDSnYLoPMO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US Hi > I don't really understand the > process for HRPC documents anymore. The process is rather simple, and pretty much up to the group. We can do individual or RG I-ds, we can RFCs, we can do journal articles or blogs or just about any documentation we would like to do. We could do a whole journal if we had the content and a publisher. We could even do a book if that was what the RG wanted to do. Any doc that has RG support can become aIRSG named RG doc if we want it to and if we think it is ready for group level work. But I am still convinced that if we supported an individual document for publication, we could get it published.=A0 I am sorry that this is de-motivating and it needs to be a work on a draft-irsg-hrpc named doc to be motivating.=A0 But if there is support fo= r your doc becoming a RG doc, I am all for it.=A0 I just have not seen the support yet, despite discussions which seemed mixed to me.=A0 But I might= have missed it. With the new year now well established, I will send out a message on each of the documents and check to see which, if any, have strong support for changing their name to draft- irsg-hrpc-... for their next release. I do think it would be good to see new versions of docs that had lots of discussion where there was a difference in points of view. What I will be looking for is an indication from the people on the list is of: a. whether the doc is ready to be a RG doc b. whether is contains issues that are still too controversial for the group consensus for inclusion at the moment. c. who is interested in working on it in the RG as a RG doc d. whether the authors are willing to give up change control and even willing for some other editor to volunteer to take over editing if things work out that way. I would note that one of the good things about continuing to work on a draft-yourname-hrpc... doc is that the authors keep control of the research and the content while it is trying to reach an annealing point in the RG. Thanks avri On 19-Dec-17 13:35, Gisela Perez de Acha wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I have to say I was a bit shocked as well. I don't really understand th= e > process for HRPC documents anymore. > > First we said we needed more traction on the list, and I do believe > there has been a lot of discussion. But then, it doesn't make sense to > discuss things endlessly in HRPC if the drafts will never become > research group documents. Especially if they also fit with the RG > charter. Being new to this list and group, I have to say I feel a bit > demotivated. > > That said, Mallory would make an excellent co-chair: she was the > technical coordinator at one of the most prominent digital civil societ= y > organisations, APC, and she also has a strong human rights background. = I > urge decision-makers in this process to be as transparent as possible > and take our opinions into consideration. > > Cheers from Mexico, > > -------- > Gisela P=E9rez de Acha > derechosdigitales.org > > > > > > >> Hi, >> >> I am a bit surprised by some of the remarks; >> draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines did not get any discussion on the list >> whereas draft-tenoever-hrpc-association has been discussed at length i= n >> 3 hrpc sessions and gotten a lot of discussions on the list (also afte= r >> last session), as well as acks for RG adoption. >> >> Your reasoning that we can make drafts a work-item but not an RG draft= >> does not make a lot of sense to me since RG drafts _are_ the work item= s >> of the RG. >> >> Where it comes to a new co-chair I think we need to look for someone w= ho >> has the time, knowledge, motivation, experience and willingness to wor= k >> on this. We received notice from one volunteer who is very interested = in >> co-chairing and who has been a contributor on this list for a long tim= e: >> Mallory Knodel. So I hope we will consider her as co-chair. >> >> Best, >> >> Niels >> >> Niels ten Oever >> Head of Digital >> >> Article 19 >> www.article19.org >> >> PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 >> 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 >> >> On 12/18/2017 12:54 PM, Avri wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Been quiet, reading the comments in the various messages, listening t= o >>> the views of people on the documents. >>> >>> As far as I can tell at this point, there is strong support >>> for=A0draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines becoming a RG document and would= be >>> glad to see it become one. =A0I think this is important, not only bec= ause >>> RFC 8280 is a bit heavy, but because while 8280 does a good job of >>> establishing a hypothesis and of giving a set of considerations that = we >>> can study, the work is not yet done. =A0The hypothesis needs to be te= sted, >>> and the considerations need to used and refined once we can determine= >>> the degree to which they are useful and fit for purpose. =A0 >>> >>> On the other documents, I think I would like to see more comment and >>> more support. =A0I also do not think that finished work necessarily n= eeds >>> to become a RG draft. If indeed a private doc is considered ready, we= >>> can still request publication. =A0As I have often told by others, thi= s is >>> a research group and every document does not need to become a researc= h >>> document in order to prove its worth. =A0So at this point, I do not f= eel >>> there is a strong need for turning the 451 report into a RG draft in >>> order to publish it. =A0If, and when, the RG believes it is ready for= >>> publication, I believe we can just request publication and go through= >>> the IRTF process (but I will confirm that). >>> >>> As far as the association draft goes, while I agree that it is not qu= ite >>> ready for RG document status, I do believe it is one that should beco= me >>> a work item. =A0I also think the same for the anonymity draft - once = I get >>> the impression we have many people who think it is ready. >>> >>> In terms of published work, I would also like to see the group branch= >>> out into academic journals if possible, though I do not think the wor= k >>> has yet reached the level were it is ready for most journals. >>> >>> In terms of the group and the possible need for a new co-chair, I hav= e >>> spoken to Allison but we are waiting to see what Niels=92 final decis= ion >>> is - he has said he was thinking of stepping down, but has not actual= ly >>> done so, and remains the co-chair as of now. =A0If he does step down,= >>> while the choice is not mine but the IRTF Chair=92s, I would like to = bring >>> in a co-chair with the social sciences skills to bring the benefits o= f >>> scientific rigor to the RG=92s work. =A0One of the hopes when we star= ted >>> this group was that it could be equally strong in Internet engineerin= g, >>> human rights, and social sciences. I believe that while it is crucial= >>> that work be useful to engineers, it is also important that it be val= id >>> from a scientific point of view - the notion that there is a link >>> between human rights and technology is still a theory that does not h= ave >>> wide acceptance. =A0If the work is to stand the test of time, I belie= ve it >>> needs to be acceptable to all three, engineers, human rights experts = and >>> social scientists. >>> >>> >>> Those are my thoughts at this point, curious to ready what thers have= to >>> say in the continuing discussion. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Avri >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> hrpc mailing list >>> hrpc@irtf.org >>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> hrpc mailing list >> hrpc@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >> > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --iJZWhyvvvc6P1iCgDfjKXj4uDSnYLoPMO-- --L9dA26PLRGD2l1C2EXh9s1mGiRgjkljEO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJaXPSKAAoJEOo+L8tCe36HyUEIALrwMG707wsB1juXahdw/6iW sOT7WTZ657FWEqbF/9XMYP/DB0Q9FcjMf1WvlzsS8cPpxV+wJcQLSczOfp3WOCNv sJ9nSO+kb616lQt9JkxqnV/i1afsoGqfgTucpWjYgnsdO0pfg5Or1zJyl68MJn64 5+gshqPiw5QnbvaUj9TKFVidsA8GrsArOna9CQxmc8nYc5x5Xf6ao5vJ0c4hSqhG Q797Vn5IVRug4gKwK5x4qrBcoGEJeAPdoWAHkXAwoO9dk4aanGUr7DHVorKwvahU sraIlqQNX/5O38mCSjEhOiJ7Ifn9NzAA0TLCAYLY8E5c6ynlJYUE3q+9tyEdYKI= =WEnR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --L9dA26PLRGD2l1C2EXh9s1mGiRgjkljEO-- From nobody Mon Jan 15 13:59:34 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1124A12EC95 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:59:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lxrWsn-j55c5 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:59:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x235.google.com (mail-wm0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6B2012EC93 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:59:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x235.google.com with SMTP id r78so4763041wme.0 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:59:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=v/Cpq5ZU5EItIpMC3gIw+MTbCol89J+1fobZ/zzsVmw=; b=oP9EyqlubIDjNCReNXDpZDiTh6PMyFey7XHjEGkO64ZpkhdNvmXzXJtqtMybboFpUA dPSAERpSKgkSRiilugIjUN2AiU2LXrvztpUy81wOY5E9q2HOsRtr5dWgMJgABmJmg0SU 2G/V9yayJdnABpG5Dt9hC0bPrexG012u1hB71p3BDFZgxMqffogJk8vUEJYPofyP2q4v ThwAU6L63Rc1zs8TO/lvYi6GZW2eovza1YQmhadbpTOlc1JPtmpGqEVskliN9rJ8ajow aLqTcZfZFHfxcTKMiCWW2vnGyxUPDQnfWzFEyFHPC3YxTP8SzHtT0Mxki5jOChsTfdCI RJAA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=v/Cpq5ZU5EItIpMC3gIw+MTbCol89J+1fobZ/zzsVmw=; b=ZlXeNHIeRsKyUEliZdaHYFS0ymD/lolW39fht3pr5SFtcihjR978tYYvHByOQql12r byjCEbH/VmtSe2S+YWKrrTEgFabuuzBrnebGNg+hqVEJHr/MhSwCB1MJkegAq8Evw+S1 nVC5At9j4NmROkZuFztzjHka4rF7PL6OPgJCToRWAq4vonRiwIW3/R71ae55ozuc2X90 qYyMo5fFSsrxWpIYSyeRENcK/WYXkcEgL5/RGc+JqhfN5QaAI+28ppDEySx91WCishPu XUVp917+Jqd9Q2dQQ9qQy9kzOJm7Jyq+f9eubfccX1yZ48c+Jk8yHteRzEqdMSIjbzDM a2oQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytf/NgbK61x5leX36d48wfTFBA69wRzKFePHEndNGxcVM/DRRiPP 4qGQifuUR0a7kq61AFwP+u2zMG+KyWknSsfv4CY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosLHFiizSgRpNyIOzGttyGSWvbcTsevnS9lHMoVLdGtSSXl6GaCpCrdnnKcPwhPCTrRVHmx1M8OA35BwkYIFug= X-Received: by 10.28.45.151 with SMTP id t145mr2010033wmt.129.1516053569292; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:59:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: cattekwaad@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.198.134 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:58:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20180110072053.GA15439@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> References: <20180110072053.GA15439@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> From: Corinne Cath Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:58:48 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: TmKNbZ2XkPJaLADcmHq0_E1-cRI Message-ID: To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11468b14754f410562d7baf6" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] BGP and politics X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:59:33 -0000 --001a11468b14754f410562d7baf6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" It was very good! I particularly liked the Q&A and the question about the difference between the legal and moral responsibility. Which seems to apply to some of the conversations we have been having as well. best, Corinne On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Very good talk at the last Chaos Computer Club Meeting on "BGP and the > rule of custom". The speaker rightly notes that "Protocols are, at > their root, systems of governance" and explains very well how the BGP > system work, and the relations between the operators, how to exclude a > rogue one, etc. "Peerings between Tier-1 is a bit like marriages > between wealthy families" > > https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-9072-bgp_and_the_rule_of_custom > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > -- Corinne Cath Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath Email: ccath@turing.ac.uk & corinnecath@gmail.com Twitter: @C_Cath --001a11468b14754f410562d7baf6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It was very good! I particularly liked the Q&A and the ques= tion about the difference between the legal and moral responsibility. Which= seems to apply to some of the conversations we have been having as well.= =C2=A0

best,

Corinne=C2=A0
=
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Stephane Bo= rtzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
Very good talk at the last Chaos Computer Club Meeting on "= BGP and the
rule of custom". The speaker rightly notes that "Protocols are, a= t
their root, systems of governance" and explains very well how the BGP<= br> system work, and the relations between the operators, how to exclude a
rogue one, etc. "Peerings between Tier-1 is a bit like marriages
between wealthy families"

https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-9072-bgp= _and_the_rule_of_custom

_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc



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

Web: www.oii.= ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath
Email: ccath@turing.ac.uk & corinnecath@gmail.com
Twitter:= @C_Cath
<= /div>
--001a11468b14754f410562d7baf6-- From nobody Tue Jan 16 03:53:53 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A24B8131471 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 03:53:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t6FgeV9ihaBb for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 03:53:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89DC012D838 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 03:53:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=21535; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1516103627; x=1517313227; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=mGaHm9LomYBrFfPDyh2TTNNmSWqcpIylufBEs/JJDb8=; b=P+lFLPig7kMNUtL7Dsp2ltVV7mHANwBfe1wTziMDlSsl7nJ8FBaXkMAx IbIYKQhpDy8KKVtOGdUnKOW6rRFKNySkrav+DEEk+o/CUREoFUarAWldp C6mPwWJx4auWRIEeCfCJ8oiNwJhmUcR3Prw9dnqTLWvBnXEQbCeWvzj6Z U=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AYAgB85l1a/xbLJq1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYMRgRZ0J4QTixiPRyeRW4dnBwMYAQqFGAKFHBQBAQEBAQEBAQF?= =?us-ascii?q?rKIUjAQEBAQIBAQEhJiIDGwsYKgICJzAHDAYCAQGKJwgQpg6CJyaJIwEBAQcBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQETD4oRKQyCeYMYFwEDhQaCZQWSJ5E9hFeCMIEFg3iDcoVVgjyJaYdrlyW?= =?us-ascii?q?BPDYiJYErMhoIGxU9gioJgkscgWYCQDeNPwEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,368,1511827200"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="1426280" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Jan 2018 11:53:43 +0000 Received: from [10.61.81.178] (ams3-vpn-dhcp4531.cisco.com [10.61.81.178]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0GBrgjo007358; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:53:42 GMT To: avri@acm.org, hrpc@irtf.org References: <757d5b93-bc4e-4dc7-aba3-0610480eab85@avris-iPad> <04ea7dbd-4a91-8ddb-5a53-fe165ee63b18@article19.org> <46ec0cab-bdf7-f24d-ea97-b13d892c86d4@acm.org> From: Eliot Lear Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:53:41 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <46ec0cab-bdf7-f24d-ea97-b13d892c86d4@acm.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="KGLDQkhk7V06KQxV4PVsPt8OpXpFrNXge" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] HRPC, next X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:53:52 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --KGLDQkhk7V06KQxV4PVsPt8OpXpFrNXge Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="kajpjie1Tx5DpbKQGgvNNeDpBLJcN6dAV"; protected-headers="v1" From: Eliot Lear To: avri@acm.org, hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: [hrpc] HRPC, next References: <757d5b93-bc4e-4dc7-aba3-0610480eab85@avris-iPad> <04ea7dbd-4a91-8ddb-5a53-fe165ee63b18@article19.org> <46ec0cab-bdf7-f24d-ea97-b13d892c86d4@acm.org> In-Reply-To: <46ec0cab-bdf7-f24d-ea97-b13d892c86d4@acm.org> --kajpjie1Tx5DpbKQGgvNNeDpBLJcN6dAV Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------9E7CA380874D8CA2E8812536" Content-Language: en-US This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------9E7CA380874D8CA2E8812536 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Avri, The IRTF has a lot of latitude over process.=C2=A0 Documents need not be consensus documents, for instance.=C2=A0 This area is, at times, controversial.=C2=A0 It seems to me that requiring rough consensus =E2=80= =93 or even turning over of change control for the purposes of getting the thing published =E2=80=93 is a high bar.=C2=A0 Also, RGs tend to ebb and flow i= n terms of work product.=C2=A0 It could well be that we are all doing our day jobs, = or that there are just other things going on. This having been said, I would suggest that authors can help themselves by bringing in new blood, especially when it comes from OUTSIDE the IETF.= Eliot On 15.01.18 19:35, avri doria wrote: > Hi > >> I don't really understand the >> process for HRPC documents anymore. > The process is rather simple, and pretty much up to the group. We can d= o > individual or RG I-ds, we can RFCs, we can do journal articles or blogs= > or just about any documentation we would like to do. We could do a whol= e > journal if we had the content and a publisher. We could even do a book > if that was what the RG wanted to do. > > Any doc that has RG support can become aIRSG named RG doc if we want it= > to and if we think it is ready for group level work. > > But I am still convinced that if we supported an individual document fo= r > publication, we could get it published.=C2=A0 > > I am sorry that this is de-motivating and it needs to be a work on a > draft-irsg-hrpc named doc to be motivating.=C2=A0 But if there is suppo= rt for > your doc becoming a RG doc, I am all for it.=C2=A0 I just have not seen= the > support yet, despite discussions which seemed mixed to me.=C2=A0 But I = might > have missed it. With the new year now well established, I will send out= > a message on each of the documents and check to see which, if any, have= > strong support for changing their name to draft- irsg-hrpc-... for thei= r > next release. > > I do think it would be good to see new versions of docs that had lots o= f > discussion where there was a difference in points of view. > > What I will be looking for is an indication from the people on the list= > is of: > > a. whether the doc is ready to be a RG doc > > b. whether is contains issues that are still too controversial for the > group consensus for inclusion at the moment. > > c. who is interested in working on it in the RG as a RG doc > > d. whether the authors are willing to give up change control and even > willing for some other editor to volunteer to take over editing if > things work out that way. > > I would note that one of the good things about continuing to work on a > draft-yourname-hrpc... doc is that the authors keep control of the > research and the content while it is trying to reach an annealing point= > in the RG. > > Thanks > > avri > > > > > On 19-Dec-17 13:35, Gisela Perez de Acha wrote: >> Hello everyone, >> >> I have to say I was a bit shocked as well. I don't really understand t= he >> process for HRPC documents anymore. >> >> First we said we needed more traction on the list, and I do believe >> there has been a lot of discussion. But then, it doesn't make sense to= >> discuss things endlessly in HRPC if the drafts will never become >> research group documents. Especially if they also fit with the RG >> charter. Being new to this list and group, I have to say I feel a bit >> demotivated. >> >> That said, Mallory would make an excellent co-chair: she was the >> technical coordinator at one of the most prominent digital civil socie= ty >> organisations, APC, and she also has a strong human rights background.= I >> urge decision-makers in this process to be as transparent as possible >> and take our opinions into consideration. >> >> Cheers from Mexico, >> >> -------- >> Gisela P=C3=A9rez de Acha >> derechosdigitales.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am a bit surprised by some of the remarks; >>> draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines did not get any discussion on the list= >>> whereas draft-tenoever-hrpc-association has been discussed at length = in >>> 3 hrpc sessions and gotten a lot of discussions on the list (also aft= er >>> last session), as well as acks for RG adoption. >>> >>> Your reasoning that we can make drafts a work-item but not an RG draf= t >>> does not make a lot of sense to me since RG drafts _are_ the work ite= ms >>> of the RG. >>> >>> Where it comes to a new co-chair I think we need to look for someone = who >>> has the time, knowledge, motivation, experience and willingness to wo= rk >>> on this. We received notice from one volunteer who is very interested= in >>> co-chairing and who has been a contributor on this list for a long ti= me: >>> Mallory Knodel. So I hope we will consider her as co-chair. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Niels >>> >>> Niels ten Oever >>> Head of Digital >>> >>> Article 19 >>> www.article19.org >>> >>> PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 >>> 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 >>> >>> On 12/18/2017 12:54 PM, Avri wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Been quiet, reading the comments in the various messages, listening = to >>>> the views of people on the documents. >>>> >>>> As far as I can tell at this point, there is strong support >>>> for=C2=A0draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines becoming a RG document and w= ould be >>>> glad to see it become one. =C2=A0I think this is important, not only= because >>>> RFC 8280 is a bit heavy, but because while 8280 does a good job of >>>> establishing a hypothesis and of giving a set of considerations that= we >>>> can study, the work is not yet done. =C2=A0The hypothesis needs to b= e tested, >>>> and the considerations need to used and refined once we can determin= e >>>> the degree to which they are useful and fit for purpose. =C2=A0 >>>> >>>> On the other documents, I think I would like to see more comment and= >>>> more support. =C2=A0I also do not think that finished work necessari= ly needs >>>> to become a RG draft. If indeed a private doc is considered ready, w= e >>>> can still request publication. =C2=A0As I have often told by others,= this is >>>> a research group and every document does not need to become a resear= ch >>>> document in order to prove its worth. =C2=A0So at this point, I do n= ot feel >>>> there is a strong need for turning the 451 report into a RG draft in= >>>> order to publish it. =C2=A0If, and when, the RG believes it is ready= for >>>> publication, I believe we can just request publication and go throug= h >>>> the IRTF process (but I will confirm that). >>>> >>>> As far as the association draft goes, while I agree that it is not q= uite >>>> ready for RG document status, I do believe it is one that should bec= ome >>>> a work item. =C2=A0I also think the same for the anonymity draft - o= nce I get >>>> the impression we have many people who think it is ready. >>>> >>>> In terms of published work, I would also like to see the group branc= h >>>> out into academic journals if possible, though I do not think the wo= rk >>>> has yet reached the level were it is ready for most journals. >>>> >>>> In terms of the group and the possible need for a new co-chair, I ha= ve >>>> spoken to Allison but we are waiting to see what Niels=E2=80=99 fina= l decision >>>> is - he has said he was thinking of stepping down, but has not actua= lly >>>> done so, and remains the co-chair as of now. =C2=A0If he does step d= own, >>>> while the choice is not mine but the IRTF Chair=E2=80=99s, I would l= ike to bring >>>> in a co-chair with the social sciences skills to bring the benefits = of >>>> scientific rigor to the RG=E2=80=99s work. =C2=A0One of the hopes wh= en we started >>>> this group was that it could be equally strong in Internet engineeri= ng, >>>> human rights, and social sciences. I believe that while it is crucia= l >>>> that work be useful to engineers, it is also important that it be va= lid >>>> from a scientific point of view - the notion that there is a link >>>> between human rights and technology is still a theory that does not = have >>>> wide acceptance. =C2=A0If the work is to stand the test of time, I b= elieve it >>>> needs to be acceptable to all three, engineers, human rights experts= and >>>> social scientists. >>>> >>>> >>>> Those are my thoughts at this point, curious to ready what thers hav= e to >>>> say in the continuing discussion. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Avri >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> hrpc mailing list >>>> hrpc@irtf.org >>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> hrpc mailing list >>> hrpc@irtf.org >>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> hrpc mailing list >> hrpc@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --------------9E7CA380874D8CA2E8812536 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Avri,

The IRTF has a lot of latitude over process.=C2=A0 Documents need = not be consensus documents, for instance.=C2=A0 This area is, at times,= controversial.=C2=A0 It seems to me that requiring rough consensus = =E2=80=93 or even turning over of change control for the purposes of getting the thing published =E2=80=93 is a high bar.=C2=A0 Also, RGs tend t= o ebb and flow in terms of work product.=C2=A0 It could well be that we are a= ll doing our day jobs, or that there are just other things going on.

This having been said, I would suggest that authors can help themselves by bringing in new blood, especially when it comes from OUTSIDE the IETF.

Eliot


On 15.01.18 19:35, avri doria wrote: 
Hi


I don't really understand the
process for HRPC documents anymore.

The process is rather simple, and pretty much up to the group. We can do
individual or RG I-ds, we can RFCs, we can do journal articles or blogs
or just about any documentation we would like to do. We could do a whole
journal if we had the content and a publisher. We could even do a book
if that was what the RG wanted to do.

Any doc that has RG support can become aIRSG named RG doc if we want it
to and if we think it is ready for group level work.

But I am still convinced that if we supported an individual document for
publication, we could get it published.=C2=A0

I am sorry that this is de-motivating and it needs to be a work on a
draft-irsg-hrpc named doc to be motivating.=C2=A0 But if there is support=
 for
your doc becoming a RG doc, I am all for it.=C2=A0 I just have not seen t=
he
support yet, despite discussions which seemed mixed to me.=C2=A0 But I mi=
ght
have missed it. With the new year now well established, I will send out
a message on each of the documents and check to see which, if any, have
strong support for changing their name to draft- irsg-hrpc-... for their
next release.

I do think it would be good to see new versions of docs that had lots of
discussion where there was a difference in points of view.

What I will be looking for is an indication from the people on the list
is of:

a. whether the doc is ready to be a RG doc

b. whether is contains issues that are still too controversial for the
group consensus for inclusion at the moment.

c. who is interested in working on it in the RG as a RG doc

d. whether the authors are willing to give up change control and even
willing for some other editor to volunteer to take over editing if
things work out that way.

I would note that one of the good things about continuing to work on a
draft-yourname-hrpc... doc is that the authors keep control of the
research and the content while it is trying to reach an annealing point
in the RG.

Thanks

avri




On 19-Dec-17 13:35, Gisela Perez de Acha wrote:

Hello everyone,

I have to say I was a bit shocked as well. I don't really understand the
process for HRPC documents anymore.

First we said we needed more traction on the list, and I do believe
there has been a lot of discussion. But then, it doesn't make sense to
discuss things endlessly in HRPC if the drafts will never become
research group documents. Especially if they also fit with the RG
charter. Being new to this list and group, I have to say I feel a bit
demotivated.

That said, Mallory would make an excellent co-chair: she was the
technical coordinator at one of the most prominent digital civil society
organisations, APC, and she also has a strong human rights background. I
urge decision-makers in this process to be as transparent as possible
and take our opinions into consideration.

Cheers from Mexico,

--------
Gisela P=C3=A9rez de Acha
derechosdigitales.org







Hi,

I am a bit surprised by some of the remarks;
draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines did not get any discussion on the list
whereas draft-tenoever-hrpc-association has been discussed at length in
3 hrpc sessions and gotten a lot of discussions on the list (also after
last session), as well as acks for RG adoption.

Your reasoning that we can make drafts a work-item but not an RG draft
does not make a lot of sense to me since RG drafts _are_ the work items
of the RG.

Where it comes to a new co-chair I think we need to look for someone who
has the time, knowledge, motivation, experience and willingness to work
on this. We received notice from one volunteer who is very interested in
co-chairing and who has been a contributor on this list for a long time:
Mallory Knodel. So I hope we will consider her as co-chair.

Best,

Niels

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
w=
ww.article19.org

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

On 12/18/2017 12:54 PM, Avri wrote:

Hi,

Been quiet, reading the comments in the various messages, listening to
the views of people on the documents.

As far as I can tell at this point, there is strong support
for=C2=A0draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines becoming a RG document and would =
be
glad to see it become one. =C2=A0I think this is important, not only beca=
use
RFC 8280 is a bit heavy, but because while 8280 does a good job of
establishing a hypothesis and of giving a set of considerations that we
can study, the work is not yet done. =C2=A0The hypothesis needs to be tes=
ted,
and the considerations need to used and refined once we can determine
the degree to which they are useful and fit for purpose. =C2=A0

On the other documents, I think I would like to see more comment and
more support. =C2=A0I also do not think that finished work necessarily ne=
eds
to become a RG draft. If indeed a private doc is considered ready, we
can still request publication. =C2=A0As I have often told by others, this=
 is
a research group and every document does not need to become a research
document in order to prove its worth. =C2=A0So at this point, I do not fe=
el
there is a strong need for turning the 451 report into a RG draft in
order to publish it. =C2=A0If, and when, the RG believes it is ready for
publication, I believe we can just request publication and go through
the IRTF process (but I will confirm that).

As far as the association draft goes, while I agree that it is not quite
ready for RG document status, I do believe it is one that should become
a work item. =C2=A0I also think the same for the anonymity draft - once I=
 get
the impression we have many people who think it is ready.

In terms of published work, I would also like to see the group branch
out into academic journals if possible, though I do not think the work
has yet reached the level were it is ready for most journals.

In terms of the group and the possible need for a new co-chair, I have
spoken to Allison but we are waiting to see what Niels=E2=80=99 final dec=
ision
is - he has said he was thinking of stepping down, but has not actually
done so, and remains the co-chair as of now. =C2=A0If he does step down,
while the choice is not mine but the IRTF Chair=E2=80=99s, I would like t=
o bring
in a co-chair with the social sciences skills to bring the benefits of
scientific rigor to the RG=E2=80=99s work. =C2=A0One of the hopes when we=
 started
this group was that it could be equally strong in Internet engineering,
human rights, and social sciences. I believe that while it is crucial
that work be useful to engineers, it is also important that it be valid
from a scientific point of view - the notion that there is a link
between human rights and technology is still a theory that does not have
wide acceptance. =C2=A0If the work is to stand the test of time, I believ=
e it
needs to be acceptable to all three, engineers, human rights experts and
social scientists.


Those are my thoughts at this point, curious to ready what thers have to
say in the continuing discussion.

Thanks
Avri


_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@=
irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc



_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@=
irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc



_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@=
irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc





_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@=
irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

--------------9E7CA380874D8CA2E8812536-- --kajpjie1Tx5DpbKQGgvNNeDpBLJcN6dAV-- --KGLDQkhk7V06KQxV4PVsPt8OpXpFrNXge Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAlpd58UACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejOPdggAsaR7RBBZqVlvnBcv8k4UJlsDwyDNt4ZfKk/u7YIHxfFNgGMgOwHnfYqr MSH1q4mYnKzg0srIIt3YfmiIhwltXMtpmBvKS/LJ0U0CJnJAeyyNaVCTAX8A3EyK lz4o7jHkgQU8ADkGZPmXAEuyBDVvgVKlcEDS6rMlKdO+c+NVzGNBupkpOQvjLO/V Z6QfJf9Q4FtbpJrw3WLV/kb3YvkJQnk9F3UMXRdGCvCkhJX6xVlUL8SV231a3xdh 6yKy+W9NwSGqfTWQOcnq0za95pdbPYLpmItt59+YUdAbyPy6aPkriKo3QW05CkTC fjxX97vP6cWAGoA149opQ0tYfCH3ZQ== =rkv2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --KGLDQkhk7V06KQxV4PVsPt8OpXpFrNXge-- From nobody Tue Jan 16 09:15:22 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE10C12DDD2 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:15:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.255 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DyDySr4eqL8l for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:15:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0221.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.221]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E085612E03E for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:15:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA50A8368EEE for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:15:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6176726940646F7269612E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 50, 0, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, avri@acm.org, :, RULES_HIT:41:152:355:379:854:960:967:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1381:1437:1513:1515:1516:1518:1521:1534:1538:1567:1593:1594:1711:1714:1730:1747:1777:1792:1960:2393:2525:2561:2564:2682:2685:2859:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3865:3867:3870:3871:3872:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4250:5007:7652:7875:9025:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12043:13069:13311:13357:13436:14181:14721:21080:21433:21451:21627:30054:30070, 0, RBL:none, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, DomainCache:0, MSF:not bulk, SPF:, MSBL:0, DNSBL:none, Custom_rules:0:0:0, LFtime:4, LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: roof73_84ff4709eb859 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1274 Received: from [198.18.11.78] (unknown [162.220.223.124]) (Authenticated sender: avri@doria.org) by omf08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:15:13 +0000 (UTC) Reply-To: avri@acm.org From: avri doria To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <3b36b025-d6b5-6abb-323a-dbd6c61ba914@acm.org> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:15:12 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 180116-4, 01/16/2018), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Anonymity, Human Rights and Internet Protocols X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:15:21 -0000 Re:=C2=A0 draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity-01 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity/ Questions: - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. - Who is interested in working on it? - Are the authors willing to give up change control? - What remains to be be done on this? From nobody Tue Jan 16 09:15:33 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC31912E044 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:15:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.255 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nWgDulami_ek for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:15:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0176.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0FC312E884 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:15:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B49531822451D for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:15:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6176726940646F7269612E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 50, 0, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, avri@acm.org, :, RULES_HIT:41:152:355:379:854:960:965:967:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1381:1437:1513:1515:1516:1518:1521:1534:1538:1567:1593:1594:1711:1714:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2525:2561:2564:2682:2685:2859:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3865:3867:3870:3871:3872:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4250:4390:5007:7652:7875:9025:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12043:13019:13069:13311:13357:13436:14181:14721:21080:21433:21451:21611:21627:30054:30070, 0, RBL:none, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, DomainCache:0, MSF:not bulk, SPF:, MSBL:0, DNSBL:none, Custom_rules:0:0:0, LFtime:2, LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: lock71_87391242f0303 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1269 Received: from [198.18.11.78] (unknown [162.220.223.124]) (Authenticated sender: avri@doria.org) by omf13.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:15:29 +0000 (UTC) Reply-To: avri@acm.org From: avri doria To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <21d44e51-ed5a-08ac-ab8e-712235e3c8bc@acm.org> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:15:27 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 180116-4, 01/16/2018), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Freedom of Association on the Internet X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:15:32 -0000 Re: draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-association/ Questions: - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the group consensus for inclusion at the moment. Please be specific. - Who is interested in working on it - Are the authors willing to give up change control - What remains to be be done on this? From nobody Tue Jan 16 09:15:52 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D1112E054 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:15:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.255 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sQAHtDUEBbVn for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:15:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0193.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E41C12E044 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:15:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DEAF1028F7E7 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:15:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6176726940646F7269612E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 50, 0, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, avri@acm.org, :, RULES_HIT:41:152:355:379:854:960:967:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1381:1437:1513:1515:1516:1518:1521:1534:1538:1567:1593:1594:1711:1714:1730:1747:1777:1792:1960:2393:2525:2561:2564:2682:2685:2859:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3865:3867:3870:3871:3872:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4250:5007:7652:7875:9025:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12043:13069:13311:13357:13436:14181:14721:21080:21433:21451:21627:30054:30070, 0, RBL:none, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, DomainCache:0, MSF:not bulk, SPF:, MSBL:0, DNSBL:none, Custom_rules:0:0:0, LFtime:2, LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: brake61_8a01edfe9ba50 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1290 Received: from [198.18.11.78] (unknown [162.220.223.124]) (Authenticated sender: avri@doria.org) by omf11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:15:48 +0000 (UTC) Reply-To: avri@acm.org From: avri doria To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:15:46 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 180116-4, 01/16/2018), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Guidelines for Human Rights Protocol Considerations X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:15:51 -0000 Re:=C2=A0 draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines-01 =C2=A0 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines/ Questions: - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. - Who is interested in working on it? - Are the authors willing to give up change control? - What remains to be be done on this? From nobody Tue Jan 16 09:16:15 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AD1E12E043 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:16:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.255 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26nTVjgWuz3o for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:16:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0207.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 471BA12E044 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:16:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 362A32EC3F for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:16:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6176726940646F7269612E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 50, 0, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, avri@acm.org, :, RULES_HIT:41:152:355:379:854:960:967:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1381:1437:1513:1515:1516:1518:1521:1534:1538:1567:1593:1594:1711:1714:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2525:2561:2564:2682:2685:2859:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3865:3867:3870:3871:3872:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4250:5007:7652:7875:9025:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12043:13069:13311:13357:13436:14181:14721:21080:21433:21451:21611:21627:30054:30070, 0, RBL:none, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, DomainCache:0, MSF:not bulk, SPF:, MSBL:0, DNSBL:none, Custom_rules:0:0:0, LFtime:2, LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: club43_8cb2605af8a29 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1256 Received: from [198.18.11.78] (unknown [162.220.223.124]) (Authenticated sender: avri@doria.org) by omf04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:16:06 +0000 (UTC) Reply-To: avri@acm.org From: avri doria To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:16:05 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 180116-4, 01/16/2018), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] On the Politics of Standards X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:16:14 -0000 Re: draft-tenoever-hrpc-political-02 =C2=A0 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-political/ Questions: - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. - Who is interested in working on it? - Are the authors willing to give up change control? - What remains to be be done on this? From nobody Tue Jan 16 09:16:35 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8748912E051 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:16:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.235 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SXmDIIS3RcjC for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:16:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0143.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA4C2129515 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:16:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0799182CED28 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:16:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6176726940646F7269612E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 50, 0, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, avri@acm.org, :, RULES_HIT:41:152:355:379:854:960:967:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1381:1437:1513:1515:1516:1518:1521:1534:1538:1567:1593:1594:1711:1714:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2525:2561:2564:2682:2685:2859:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3865:3867:3870:3871:3872:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4250:5007:7652:7875:9025:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12043:13069:13311:13357:13436:14181:14721:21080:21212:21433:21451:21627:30054:30070, 0, RBL:none, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, DomainCache:0, MSF:not bulk, SPF:, MSBL:0, DNSBL:none, Custom_rules:0:0:0, LFtime:2, LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: snake19_8f58aa295cb24 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1263 Received: from [198.18.11.78] (unknown [162.220.223.124]) (Authenticated sender: avri@doria.org) by omf02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:16:24 +0000 (UTC) Reply-To: avri@acm.org From: avri doria To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:16:21 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 180116-4, 01/16/2018), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Unrequested Communications X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:16:32 -0000 Re: draft-tenoever-hrpc-unrequested-00 =C2=A0= https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-unrequested/ Questions: - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. - Who is interested in working on it? - Are the authors willing to give up change control? - What remains to be be done on this? From nobody Tue Jan 16 09:16:49 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B67F12E858 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:16:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.255 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7jIfioBRaKsI for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:16:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0089.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0CAC12E057 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:16:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70400181E490C for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:16:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6176726940646F7269612E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 50, 0, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, avri@acm.org, :, RULES_HIT:41:152:355:379:854:960:967:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1381:1437:1513:1515:1516:1518:1521:1534:1538:1567:1593:1594:1711:1714:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2525:2561:2564:2682:2685:2859:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3865:3867:3870:3871:3872:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4250:5007:6120:7652:7875:7901:9025:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12043:13069:13311:13357:13436:13848:14181:14721:21080:21433:21451:21627:30012:30046:30054:30070, 0, RBL:none, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, DomainCache:0, MSF:not bulk, SPF:, MSBL:0, DNSBL:none, Custom_rules:0:0:0, LFtime:2, LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: form63_db76e151104 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1258 Received: from [198.18.11.78] (unknown [162.220.223.124]) (Authenticated sender: avri@doria.org) by omf07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:16:45 +0000 (UTC) Reply-To: avri@acm.org From: avri doria To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <4ac916b1-bfc9-e5f7-fbc7-456c3c56dfa2@acm.org> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:16:44 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 180116-4, 01/16/2018), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Implementation Report for HTTP Status Code 451 (RFC 7725) X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:16:48 -0000 Re: draft-451-imp-report-00 =C2=A0 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-451-imp-report/ Questions: - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. - Who is interested in working on it? - Are the authors willing to give up change control? - What remains to be be done on this? From nobody Tue Jan 16 10:52:24 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5971012EA76 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 10:52:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pMqKuKXJ0VKy for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 10:52:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf0-x233.google.com (mail-lf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9F9D12EAA3 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 10:52:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id h140so18714617lfg.1 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 10:52:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+JyEuE3RdOfhogCNFdnk2j6/RnxMM44jFniFxIcyo0c=; b=dOtvHmaKMMU1CziPmfTlEp55RufZgrIdsa/mjhwitPdNpN6gmgUqrPwVgQOg5a3Ahb lhImDkVLIIxB6HMOKBZmN2Rs+gewzIgHVMo0T8WDOZrAHtvKvQIeGvpxtzynKX0I97Mf TQnLQc+w6aMFtVsb9D0v10+OiFUmwehTOdnLHTnw74HHI1Dkt51upRqeYNmgrtHPtGy5 B8iRTMkI5BUJ78mdgrReqvL+Q//WgHmP3Knhv363YQ/Lki+tLV5rFKrG+MkvJt4MTzMG cJ760pfGhpZOeo25/xXT5Mns+7lvW44AHXh9UH1HxR0qc4nrvN/NNGRlia4f7383cfV3 3aZw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+JyEuE3RdOfhogCNFdnk2j6/RnxMM44jFniFxIcyo0c=; b=OZ/l+5iVu1WqjQ577Gk7vpgvONyzIkV5b3hbGURjQe+tgWBl8enbgR5NDuR+Bcq94u Syt65HtTOQw2lE7jBPFqz1mJYkylKo1mTmTjzSN/IDvaUyD4QR9jQFAMDIgMot8j5ga8 oY3RFweiORjK2Tf1ATRKeTvDKetJ49hR/9Ra97ZTTWChmOb3YHPzsljFCLuLnDM09Ysg dxV/68llBQYYGs8h3hUZaEOc4xmjSFpkg2glf1YVRVZyY7XAvZHFobeocfoGZfIWB8Rk y3jh67ddqhfS1VnMz3TzVpAqOfTmAU5a1xRNYIptbd8NEGnKN47gSJptxjPIX9isD7Qo V6YA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJoVpJY4WDo8xAiayksrUnUrLyqYKNPdGEfsmJ0Wfuv8j3JwV7+ NZqbFWbTw3oKkrau3qq0bucIiTObkdvhdgTMsS8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosHg2PbHfcTHnrKGEZyhJm3JV7QzuSTSJtMo6n1KVmEmLlyNDdBGimPii0qiUIxGhItIxIK3CVVzxx/eQPRcjA= X-Received: by 10.46.70.2 with SMTP id t2mr24457689lja.140.1516128721737; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 10:52:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.46.21.28 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 10:51:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4ac916b1-bfc9-e5f7-fbc7-456c3c56dfa2@acm.org> References: <4ac916b1-bfc9-e5f7-fbc7-456c3c56dfa2@acm.org> From: Shivan Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:51:21 -0500 Message-ID: To: avri@acm.org Cc: Hrpc Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045f7308e49b850562e939a4" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Implementation Report for HTTP Status Code 451 (RFC 7725) X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:52:23 -0000 --f403045f7308e49b850562e939a4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm still working on this, but would be willing to defer control to the RG if people are interested in contributing =E2=80=8B. Consolidation work remains to be done for all the 451 drafts. =E2=80=8B =E2=80=8B On Jan 16, 2018 12:17 PM, "avri doria" wrote: Re: draft-451-imp-report-00 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-451-imp-report/ Questions: - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. - Who is interested in working on it? - Are the authors willing to give up change control? - What remains to be be done on this? _______________________________________________ hrpc mailing list hrpc@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --f403045f7308e49b850562e939a4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm still working on this, but = would be willing to defer control to the RG if people are interested in con= tributing
=E2=80=8B.

Consolidation work remains to be done for al= l the 451 drafts.=C2=A0

=E2=80= =8B
=E2=80=8B


On Jan 16, 2018 12:17 P= M, "avri doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Re: draft-451-imp-report-00
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/dra= ft-451-imp-report/>=C2=A0

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-45= 1-imp-report/

Questions:

- Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc?

- Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the
group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific.

- Who is interested in working on it?

- Are the authors willing to give up change control?

- What remains to be be done on this?

_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

--f403045f7308e49b850562e939a4-- From nobody Tue Jan 16 11:08:17 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 000FE12EA7F for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:08:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tamu-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DlXGRpbAoZUZ for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:08:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-it0-x22d.google.com (mail-it0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A855E12E038 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:08:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-it0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id p139so6147320itb.1 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:08:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tamu-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=OXp277Zt0Xqa8KkktUTYRbI26l3tr89E7r8OCnunUFo=; b=s0i+2jSaiFyMPtOKNx+sPr6mvEePCfOLBAidf4pwg0524MaJi9iM/EhjlyDVyEyRqU VFwFw9vquhio6HzUp1UwWvKTppz1ymIVja901HrGjQYeQwXf6LCqWWgOkEP4aXFCel2J fym+dTFA+DdfP+NbiOJRXvV8ogPjlpUbeMOAvFaorICtSLIKjVLzdlejURVs8vOU9+jz Dyg2LH9PPRkk5HhusPF+XeT1D/lfu/1/GfBeUurv4dOlHzN9PKU5I4yB6asbnh+eJZlA mlfRm6UCPXARZ97mE2pW8cVhvvh2Cbdogmf1l1qBXEyQ/vS6eDXlkMWldMjiUy8bgTeH PdoA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=OXp277Zt0Xqa8KkktUTYRbI26l3tr89E7r8OCnunUFo=; b=j1lXMt87bc+wBS/hU+Iypr/+bCrYgVH8922SUqc4wCUi+xSqSYtLEAi8f9wkZT9CUt BbVJnXF2pncEdEbDJ1E0Gc9m1R4RenucJDVrlVYXvaXEWPT/touje6UKhWydhjmXjs5O d7MQ64M/kpLNJqIlMIqWzeXKNtm6/PM7uSJT9n29BdyWTA2uwH0bd5/VhD8Q8DuWes7j ZJjS4+97GcePSahLdwfqRViQewNlCTWsz03gqM2/sfgmdTymuB6EfgNlRQLYdVE+GWbx qDZmW17oOuBp2S9p46DLVnlZ++EbR8de4T62puFoBcYa8O8xzMwqW/VegQEHHpITWVK8 P6GA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxyteZ6ka0TALzKYZrewXolc80mfe+5PhMW6RT8MvpXkaognB5+ENi PbP+/ZyqAcg59vCYBU7aEQiOzth7FjthQWpa1L2HyA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosacl52SobFfNb2zAOfGtf77M4Ysd8xgo5JgXtYPH9LtAZi1hnLVP8KfKBw7I8Q875ohfPbTdEccXhkmgtiRcs= X-Received: by 10.36.203.131 with SMTP id u125mr20621138itg.78.1516129691000; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:08:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.53.39 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:08:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Sandra Braman Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:08:10 -0600 Message-ID: To: hrpc@irtf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0afb68aa77f10562e97371" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] hrpc Digest, Vol 34, Issue 10 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 19:08:16 -0000 --94eb2c0afb68aa77f10562e97371 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Newbie question: When an author or authors give up change control, what happens? Who can make changes at that point, how is the discussion channeled if anyone can make changes at that point, and who is still in control in the sense of being able to "push the button" to change the status of the document? What has been the history of this transition point with other hrpc texts? Thanks -- Sandra Braman On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:52 PM, wrote: > Send hrpc mailing list submissions to > hrpc@irtf.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > hrpc-request@irtf.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > hrpc-owner@irtf.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of hrpc digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Anonymity, Human Rights and Internet Protocols (avri doria) > 2. Freedom of Association on the Internet (avri doria) > 3. Guidelines for Human Rights Protocol Considerations (avri doria) > 4. On the Politics of Standards (avri doria) > 5. Unrequested Communications (avri doria) > 6. Implementation Report for HTTP Status Code 451 (RFC 7725) > (avri doria) > 7. Re: Implementation Report for HTTP Status Code 451 (RFC 7725) > (Shivan) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: avri doria > To: hrpc@irtf.org > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:15:12 -0500 > Subject: [hrpc] Anonymity, Human Rights and Internet Protocols > Re: draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity-01 > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity/ > > Questions: > > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? > > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the > group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. > > - Who is interested in working on it? > > - Are the authors willing to give up change control? > > - What remains to be be done on this? > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: avri doria > To: hrpc@irtf.org > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:15:27 -0500 > Subject: [hrpc] Freedom of Association on the Internet > Re: draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02 > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-association/ > > > Questions: > > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc > > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the > group consensus for inclusion at the moment. Please be specific. > > - Who is interested in working on it > > - Are the authors willing to give up change control > > - What remains to be be done on this? > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: avri doria > To: hrpc@irtf.org > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:15:46 -0500 > Subject: [hrpc] Guidelines for Human Rights Protocol Considerations > Re: draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines-01 > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines/ > > Questions: > > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? > > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the > group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. > > - Who is interested in working on it? > > - Are the authors willing to give up change control? > > - What remains to be be done on this? > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: avri doria > To: hrpc@irtf.org > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:16:05 -0500 > Subject: [hrpc] On the Politics of Standards > Re: draft-tenoever-hrpc-political-02 > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-political/ > > Questions: > > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? > > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the > group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. > > - Who is interested in working on it? > > - Are the authors willing to give up change control? > > - What remains to be be done on this? > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: avri doria > To: hrpc@irtf.org > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:16:21 -0500 > Subject: [hrpc] Unrequested Communications > Re: draft-tenoever-hrpc-unrequested-00 > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-unrequested/ > > Questions: > > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? > > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the > group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. > > - Who is interested in working on it? > > - Are the authors willing to give up change control? > > - What remains to be be done on this? > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: avri doria > To: hrpc@irtf.org > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:16:44 -0500 > Subject: [hrpc] Implementation Report for HTTP Status Code 451 (RFC 7725) > Re: draft-451-imp-report-00 > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-451-imp-report/ > > Questions: > > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? > > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the > group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. > > - Who is interested in working on it? > > - Are the authors willing to give up change control? > > - What remains to be be done on this? > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Shivan > To: avri@acm.org > Cc: Hrpc > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:51:21 -0500 > Subject: Re: [hrpc] Implementation Report for HTTP Status Code 451 (RFC > 7725) > I'm still working on this, but would be willing to defer control to the R= G > if people are interested in contributing > =E2=80=8B. > > Consolidation work remains to be done for all the 451 drafts. > > =E2=80=8B > =E2=80=8B > > > On Jan 16, 2018 12:17 PM, "avri doria" wrote: > > Re: draft-451-imp-report-00 > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-451-imp-report/ > > Questions: > > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? > > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the > group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. > > - Who is interested in working on it? > > - Are the authors willing to give up change control? > > - What remains to be be done on this? > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > --94eb2c0afb68aa77f10562e97371 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Newbie question:=C2=A0 When an author or authors give up c= hange control, what happens?=C2=A0 Who can make changes at that point, how = is the discussion channeled if anyone can make changes at that point, and w= ho is still in control in the sense of being able to "push the button&= quot; to change the status of the document? What has been the history of th= is transition point with other hrpc texts?

Thanks --

Sandra Braman



On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12= :52 PM, <hrpc-request@irtf.org> wrote:
Send hrpc mailing list submissions to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 hrpc@irtf.org<= /a>

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://www.irtf.org/mailman/<= wbr>listinfo/hrpc
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 hrpc-r= equest@irtf.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 hrpc-own= er@irtf.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of hrpc digest..."

Today's Topics:

=C2=A0 =C2=A01. Anonymity, Human Rights and Internet Protocols (avri doria)=
=C2=A0 =C2=A02. Freedom of Association on the Internet (avri doria)
=C2=A0 =C2=A03. Guidelines for Human Rights Protocol Considerations (avri d= oria)
=C2=A0 =C2=A04. On the Politics of Standards (avri doria)
=C2=A0 =C2=A05. Unrequested Communications (avri doria)
=C2=A0 =C2=A06. Implementation Report for HTTP Status Code 451 (RFC 7725) =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (avri doria)
=C2=A0 =C2=A07. Re: Implementation Report for HTTP Status Code 451 (RFC 772= 5)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (Shivan)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0avri doria &l= t;avri@acm.org>
To:=C2=A0hrpc@irtf.org
Cc:=C2=A0
Bcc:=C2=A0
D= ate:=C2=A0Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:15:12 -0500
Subject:=C2=A0[hrpc] Anonymity= , Human Rights and Internet Protocols
Re:=C2=A0 draft-tenoever-hrpc-anon= ymity-01
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity/>

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc= /draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity/

Questions:

- Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc?

- Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the
group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific.

- Who is interested in working on it?

- Are the authors willing to give up change control?

- What remains to be be done on this?




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0avri doria &l= t;avri@acm.org>
To:=C2=A0hrpc@irtf.org
Cc:=C2=A0
Bcc:=C2=A0
D= ate:=C2=A0Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:15:27 -0500
Subject:=C2=A0[hrpc] Freedom o= f Association on the Internet
Re: draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-0= 2
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-association/>

https://datatracker.ietf.org/d= oc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-association/


Questions:

- Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc

- Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the
group consensus for inclusion at the moment. Please be specific.

- Who is interested in working on it

- Are the authors willing to give up change control

- What remains to be be done on this?






---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0avri doria &l= t;avri@acm.org>
To:=C2=A0hrpc@irtf.org
Cc:=C2=A0
Bcc:=C2=A0
D= ate:=C2=A0Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:15:46 -0500
Subject:=C2=A0[hrpc] Guideline= s for Human Rights Protocol Considerations
Re:=C2=A0 draft-tenoever-hrpc= -guidelines-01
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines/>=C2=A0

https://datatracker.ietf.org/do= c/draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines/

Questions:

- Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc?

- Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the
group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific.

- Who is interested in working on it?

- Are the authors willing to give up change control?

- What remains to be be done on this?





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0avri doria &l= t;avri@acm.org>
To:=C2=A0hrpc@irtf.org
Cc:=C2=A0
Bcc:=C2=A0
D= ate:=C2=A0Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:16:05 -0500
Subject:=C2=A0[hrpc] On the Po= litics of Standards
Re: draft-tenoever-hrpc-political-02
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-political/>=C2=A0

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc= /draft-tenoever-hrpc-political/

Questions:

- Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc?

- Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the
group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific.

- Who is interested in working on it?

- Are the authors willing to give up change control?

- What remains to be be done on this?




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0avri doria &l= t;avri@acm.org>
To:=C2=A0hrpc@irtf.org
Cc:=C2=A0
Bcc:=C2=A0
D= ate:=C2=A0Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:16:21 -0500
Subject:=C2=A0[hrpc] Unrequest= ed Communications
Re: draft-tenoever-hrpc-unrequested-00
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-unrequested/>=C2=A0

https://datatracker.ietf.org/d= oc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-unrequested/

Questions:

- Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc?

- Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the
group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific.

- Who is interested in working on it?

- Are the authors willing to give up change control?

- What remains to be be done on this?




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0avri doria &l= t;avri@acm.org>
To:=C2=A0hrpc@irtf.org
Cc:=C2=A0
Bcc:=C2=A0
D= ate:=C2=A0Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:16:44 -0500
Subject:=C2=A0[hrpc] Implement= ation Report for HTTP Status Code 451 (RFC 7725)
Re: draft-451-imp-repor= t-00
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/dra= ft-451-imp-report/>=C2=A0

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-45= 1-imp-report/

Questions:

- Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc?

- Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the
group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific.

- Who is interested in working on it?

- Are the authors willing to give up change control?

- What remains to be be done on this?




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0Shivan <shivankaul.1993@gmail.com>= ;
To:=C2=A0avri@acm.org
Cc:=C2=A0= Hrpc <hrpc@irtf.org>
Bcc:=C2= =A0
Date:=C2=A0Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:51:21 -0500
Subject:=C2=A0Re: [hrp= c] Implementation Report for HTTP Status Code 451 (RFC 7725)
I'm still working on this, but would be wi= lling to defer control to the RG if people are interested in contributing=E2=80=8B.

Consolidation work remains to be done for all the 451 dr= afts.=C2=A0

=E2=80=8B
=E2=80=8B


On Jan 16, 2018 12:17 PM, "avri= doria" <avri@acm= .org> wrote:
Re: draft-451-imp-report-00
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/dra= ft-451-imp-report/>=C2=A0

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-45= 1-imp-report/

Questions:

- Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc?

- Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the
group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific.

- Who is interested in working on it?

- Are the authors willing to give up change control?

- What remains to be be done on this?

_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc


_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc


--94eb2c0afb68aa77f10562e97371-- From nobody Tue Jan 16 16:43:01 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F4A112EBD8 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:43:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.254 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.254 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IGynmIKS9ZcL for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:42:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0139.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.139]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC33012EBC8 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:42:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90D521819E74F for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 00:42:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6176726940646F7269612E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 2, -8.8, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, avri@acm.org, :, RULES_HIT:1:41:69:152:355:379:599:800:854:960:966:967:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1381:1431:1437:1513:1515:1516:1518:1521:1593:1594:1605:1730:1747:1777:1792:1963:2196:2199:2393:2525:2553:2568:2610:2637:2682:2685:2741:2859:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4184:4250:4362:4385:4605:4860:5007:6117:6119:7514:7522:7576:7577:7652:7875:7901:7903:7974:8660:9010:9025:9545:10008:10848:10967:11232:11253:11658:11783:11914:12043:12050:12291:12294:12379:12438:12663:12683:12740:12895:13148:13161:13229:13230:13436:13846:13869:14095:14096:21060:21080:21107:21324:21325:21326:21433:21451:21611:21627:30005:30012:30022:30041:30046:30054:30060:30070:30083:30090:30091, 0, RBL:none, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, DomainCache:0, MSF:not bulk, SPF:, MSBL:0, DNSBL:none, Custom_rules:0:1:0, LFtime:2 X-HE-Tag: jail54_70eb30b4d4f0d X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 12690 Received: from [198.18.11.78] (unknown [162.220.223.124]) (Authenticated sender: avri@doria.org) by omf10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 00:42:55 +0000 (UTC) Reply-To: avri@acm.org To: hrpc@irtf.org References: From: avri doria Message-ID: <7de6eb3f-9e58-feb3-cdca-d76675d37bbc@acm.org> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 19:42:53 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 180116-4, 01/16/2018), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] hrpc Digest, Vol 34, Issue 10 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 00:43:00 -0000 Hi, It becomes the rough consensus of the group that drives the doc.=C2=A0 Certainly the original author can remain the editor, but equally someone else can be, and sometimes is, picked if necessary. Note, the original author is a member of the group with the same ability to argue for a point of view even if the stop being the editor. In terms of accepting a doc as RG doc, that is something I think belongs to the RG as a rough consensus decision in this group. So the chair or co-chairs decide if they think there is consensus, and then test it with the group.=C2=A0 If they get rebuffed for a wrong call, then the discussi= on continues until there is a rough consensus call that survives the opinion of the group. =C2=A0 For example, I had made a call that only one doc was right for RG status, but got a certain amount of rebuff, waited a bit to see what other opinions came in and then decided to ask more questions to see where I went wrong. Again the group could have been designed differently, but we decided at the beginning to follow IETF guidelines on such things for the most part.= thanks avri On 16-Jan-18 14:08, Sandra Braman wrote: > Newbie question:=C2=A0 When an author or authors give up change control= , > what happens?=C2=A0 Who can make changes at that point, how is the > discussion channeled if anyone can make changes at that point, and who > is still in control in the sense of being able to "push the button" to > change the status of the document? What has been the history of this > transition point with other hrpc texts? > > Thanks -- > > Sandra Braman > > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:52 PM, > wrote: > > Send hrpc mailing list submissions to > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 hrpc@irtf.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/h= rpc > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 hrpc-request@irtf.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 hrpc-owner@irtf.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific= > than "Re: Contents of hrpc digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > =C2=A0 =C2=A01. Anonymity, Human Rights and Internet Protocols (avr= i doria) > =C2=A0 =C2=A02. Freedom of Association on the Internet (avri doria)= > =C2=A0 =C2=A03. Guidelines for Human Rights Protocol Considerations= (avri doria) > =C2=A0 =C2=A04. On the Politics of Standards (avri doria) > =C2=A0 =C2=A05. Unrequested Communications (avri doria) > =C2=A0 =C2=A06. Implementation Report for HTTP Status Code 451 (RFC= 7725) > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (avri doria) > =C2=A0 =C2=A07. Re: Implementation Report for HTTP Status Code 451 = (RFC 7725) > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (Shivan) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From:=C2=A0avri doria > > To:=C2=A0hrpc@irtf.org > Cc:=C2=A0 > Bcc:=C2=A0 > Date:=C2=A0Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:15:12 -0500 > Subject:=C2=A0[hrpc] Anonymity, Human Rights and Internet Protocols= > Re:=C2=A0 draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity-01 > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity/ > > > Questions: > > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? > > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for = the > group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. > > - Who is interested in working on it? > > - Are the authors willing to give up change control? > > - What remains to be be done on this? > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From:=C2=A0avri doria > > To:=C2=A0hrpc@irtf.org > Cc:=C2=A0 > Bcc:=C2=A0 > Date:=C2=A0Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:15:27 -0500 > Subject:=C2=A0[hrpc] Freedom of Association on the Internet > Re: draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02 > = > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-association/ > = > > > Questions: > > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc > > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for = the > group consensus for inclusion at the moment. Please be specific. > > - Who is interested in working on it > > - Are the authors willing to give up change control > > - What remains to be be done on this? > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From:=C2=A0avri doria > > To:=C2=A0hrpc@irtf.org > Cc:=C2=A0 > Bcc:=C2=A0 > Date:=C2=A0Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:15:46 -0500 > Subject:=C2=A0[hrpc] Guidelines for Human Rights Protocol Considera= tions > Re:=C2=A0 draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines-01 > >= =C2=A0 > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines/ > > > Questions: > > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? > > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for = the > group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. > > - Who is interested in working on it? > > - Are the authors willing to give up change control? > > - What remains to be be done on this? > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From:=C2=A0avri doria > > To:=C2=A0hrpc@irtf.org > Cc:=C2=A0 > Bcc:=C2=A0 > Date:=C2=A0Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:16:05 -0500 > Subject:=C2=A0[hrpc] On the Politics of Standards > Re: draft-tenoever-hrpc-political-02 > >=C2= =A0 > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-political/ > > > Questions: > > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? > > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for = the > group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. > > - Who is interested in working on it? > > - Are the authors willing to give up change control? > > - What remains to be be done on this? > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From:=C2=A0avri doria > > To:=C2=A0hrpc@irtf.org > Cc:=C2=A0 > Bcc:=C2=A0 > Date:=C2=A0Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:16:21 -0500 > Subject:=C2=A0[hrpc] Unrequested Communications > Re: draft-tenoever-hrpc-unrequested-00 > = >=C2=A0 > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-unrequested/ > = > > Questions: > > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? > > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for = the > group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. > > - Who is interested in working on it? > > - Are the authors willing to give up change control? > > - What remains to be be done on this? > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From:=C2=A0avri doria > > To:=C2=A0hrpc@irtf.org > Cc:=C2=A0 > Bcc:=C2=A0 > Date:=C2=A0Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:16:44 -0500 > Subject:=C2=A0[hrpc] Implementation Report for HTTP Status Code 451= > (RFC 7725) > Re: draft-451-imp-report-00 > >=C2=A0 > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-451-imp-report/ > > > Questions: > > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? > > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for = the > group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. > > - Who is interested in working on it? > > - Are the authors willing to give up change control? > > - What remains to be be done on this? > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From:=C2=A0Shivan > > To:=C2=A0avri@acm.org > Cc:=C2=A0Hrpc > > Bcc:=C2=A0 > Date:=C2=A0Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:51:21 -0500 > Subject:=C2=A0Re: [hrpc] Implementation Report for HTTP Status Code= 451 > (RFC 7725) > I'm still working on this, but would be willing to defer control > to the RG if people are interested in contributing > =E2=80=8B. > > Consolidation work remains to be done for all the 451 drafts.=C2=A0= > > =E2=80=8B > =E2=80=8B > > > On Jan 16, 2018 12:17 PM, "avri doria" > wrote: > > Re: draft-451-imp-report-00 > >=C2=A0= > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-451-imp-report/ > > > Questions: > > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? > > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial > for the > group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific= =2E > > - Who is interested in working on it? > > - Are the authors willing to give up change control? > > - What remains to be be done on this? > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc From nobody Wed Jan 17 11:21:09 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E27F12D868 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:21:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b8iElooLzlKF for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:21:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x231.google.com (mail-wm0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F7B0126C0F for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:21:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x231.google.com with SMTP id f71so17351944wmf.0 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:21:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=/QTYct6DBUYMvIsDrBqQjA+4qMZxS3Ftix0O4zMM3a8=; b=krqLXC/7y9Qo521DAEdODstQydp2H0K+teSG/ST4aHE5P/oUyS9aXsww/ijJWd1zUj ko/3yP1ZcbWJmJym9DW8RE/YCm0sF8kXuSJhF35yek+xFhwlGoCjN+wVCtneXxi6g7vP wfNEdO7yd7KsBcmgeef+DKOYbBn0VrzqXI6BLIenlTD6n19WcjqejaKmk4AwVm1X5FwV SJT+P+/WSaHWy3/RgzcfL0jxlGYhHN+U24eXfU1+v91X9fQ8xFhvpOsI4Hhg57qLlHU1 JR4BVgjS4AsH1xGJrEm5vwW9NxRmSCjwYWxHmmZG/GBFAIxMQDJG02UVqyx6W1U8d9cn MmBg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/QTYct6DBUYMvIsDrBqQjA+4qMZxS3Ftix0O4zMM3a8=; b=MaAQSRW/NfQbnJ7ZkFySrMyrHdYnUZpRbnVtBr1oLc4g8BwYfFnNJhMCaEOG4Wa538 7IbXyOxVq8AMojWxfLuxPLpe2NEXyS7WXfQZ+kX6FZqBOgZeKj729UCwTJ/H1PDAELRz f3NCc4u8YdoIGFYyKl8Xy5e/fdxNWbyLuTXSv2LtKI4Yc0HbSVvtdqNRAdFGbJhuTTYn 3p7LJllwTbvFd9vlLodk46rZs4gEPYHwjmUvt6ytlA+AqcRRcwVA45MiWuoBJSkR9yIy jOmsiQWI3Eer+SvQKVm6aIuVbN7YvLnaa76JwnQH1s417jo/UVJRPtZetlD6aRDGv3vH Fb7A== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxyte1SJd58EekScUl4klxGsBlq/RBRCcjn5VBCzUBAp2TUmmKwVjR 5AGvt66zkxWlBw3BPWvCOR6rT9XtNrjnll7AW4g= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBot+WLvIIejbaQDL3T44ZYftCt+KJH66ZP0XMwD1GWAz1DEYkME6tzTUt6gORZDByOQ5SqwAFdt/OjqNDo4DqHg= X-Received: by 10.28.199.132 with SMTP id x126mr2903172wmf.71.1516216863965; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:21:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: cattekwaad@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.157.71 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:20:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Corinne Cath Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 19:20:23 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: -Dy_Y3-q7AgDM8Q0dqNfKCbsRw4 Message-ID: To: Avri Doria Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0d4d1e9447890562fdbf8c" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Guidelines for Human Rights Protocol Considerations X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 19:21:07 -0000 --94eb2c0d4d1e9447890562fdbf8c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In line: On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 5:15 PM, avri doria wrote: > Re: draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines-01 > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines/ > > Questions: > > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the > group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. > > - Who is interested in working on it? > =E2=80=8Bme.=E2=80=8B > > - Are the authors willing to give up change control? > > - What remains to be be done on this? =E2=80=8BMuch.=E2=80=8B > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > --=20 Corinne Cath Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath Email: ccath@turing.ac.uk & corinnecath@gmail.com Twitter: @C_Cath --94eb2c0d4d1e9447890562fdbf8c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In line:

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 5:15 PM, avri doria <= avri@acm.org> wrote:
Re:=C2=A0 draft-tenoever-hrpc-<= wbr>guidelines-01
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines/>=C2=A0

https://datatracker.ietf.org/do= c/draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines/

Questions:

- Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc?=C2=A0

- Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the
group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific.

- Who is interested in working on it?

=E2=80=8Bme= .=E2=80=8B

- Are the authors willing to give up change control?

- What remains to be be done on this?

=E2=80=8BMuch.= =E2=80=8B
=C2=A0


_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc



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

Web: www.oii.= ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath
Email: ccath@turing.ac.uk & corinnecath@gmail.com
Twitter:= @C_Cath
<= /div>
--94eb2c0d4d1e9447890562fdbf8c-- From nobody Thu Jan 18 01:43:43 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E7612EB24 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 01:43:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3cCY04_XVqzV for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 01:43:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [217.70.190.232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED41712E046 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 01:43:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id EFDCC31D1D; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:43:21 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DAB871908BF; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:40:58 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:40:58 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180118094058.xf6amdl3saumvrjr@sources.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Transport: UUCP rules X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.3 X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] About draft-harkins-tls-dragonfly X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 09:43:42 -0000 If I'm correct, this draft, which is currently in the RFC Editor Queue , 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 nobody Thu Jan 18 02:25:45 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C612512EA9F for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 02:25:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.587 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=open-xchange.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EcVFW0S3UyOq for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 02:25:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D96412D861 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 02:25:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx4.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8D866A48A; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 11:25:39 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1516271139; bh=XTb6gtapi1n0R/eW9GCWJTcfkV7jN77zX3tcxDXLS68=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=z5/Fe/iBKDhzybzOflnnOJQs7sk0AfilqvxIB06vAZLsDb7aS03y4Rkppc5B0o1gu 6U86wTJFDEN80VA2k/1jNkIztxOoBXk+GaFjStxb2sRq1i4V+0oYSLJdQ+Mlp+/RF0 o98tmec0bP+IjhQxgN1aGrLFy3LOVXsMpYGA2FERjsktSHYI/JEVooYpEQVPWJj4HP 87fcbK9Ih46ttmGEGCMia82QxaEs7XojD32GopDU1jUY2Jo7BpBljYzlBu8DEBB8vp KrQ8gSsyOml8OgPtEPQZA9+PeOHKKUH9MluoCXNSLzzUaDr6c28ZY9uBd3Qd8QCQEW DByRTM6MxQCOQ== Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC9E53C1B3C; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 11:25:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from open-xchange.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (imap.open-xchange.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ODN_KAVh2qKW; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 11:25:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from null (appsuite-gw4.open-xchange.com [192.168.110.160]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA256 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C2753C002B; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 11:25:39 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 11:25:38 +0100 (CET) From: Vittorio Bertola To: Stephane Bortzmeyer , hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <1372560991.20285.1516271139254@appsuite.open-xchange.com> In-Reply-To: <20180118094058.xf6amdl3saumvrjr@sources.org> References: <20180118094058.xf6amdl3saumvrjr@sources.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_Part_20283_1996112529.1516271139184" X-Priority: 3 Importance: Medium X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.8.4-Rev20 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] About draft-harkins-tls-dragonfly X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:25:44 -0000 ------=_Part_20283_1996112529.1516271139184 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Il 18 gennaio 2018 alle 1= 0.40 Stephane Bortzmeyer ha scritto:


If I'm correct, this dr= aft, which is currently in the RFC Editor
Queue , will be the
first R= FC with an explicit "Human Rights Considerations" section.

B= ut this section is questionable and I suggest that other people here
loo= k 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
i= ncludes complicated cryptography, just check section 9.)

Wel= l, "the government is continually growing bigger and more powerful and = the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control&= #34; seems to be the motivation for a lot of cryptographers and digital rig= hts activists these days... In the end, I too am irked by the last paragrap= h of that section - but can you remove the author's personal views from= a personal draft? Any "Human Rights Considerations" section will b= e 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 7015= 022
Skype:in-skype-ox@bertola.eu
<= /td>
Email:vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com


Twitter: @openexchange - Facebook: OpenXchange - Web: www.open-xchange.com
= Open-Xchange AG, Rollnerstr. 14, 90408 Nuremberg, District Court Nur= emberg HRB 24738
Managing Board: Rafael Laguna de la Vera, Carsten Dirks= , Michael Knapstein
Chairman of the Board: Richard Seibt

Europea= n Office:
Open-Xchange GmbH, Olper Huette 5f, D-57462 Olpe, Germany, Di= strict Court Siegen, HRB 8718
Managing Director: Frank Hoberg

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

Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are int= ended 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 no= tified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, c= irculation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly pro= hibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender im= mediately by return e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments fro= m your system.
=20 ------=_Part_20283_1996112529.1516271139184 Content-Type: image/png; name=image1.png Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <5be0f06900124bc5ac3f7591a0d1911f> Content-Disposition: inline; filename=image1.png iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAL4AAAAoCAYAAABAS0DDAAAABmJLR0QA/wD/AP+gvaeTAAAACXBI WXMAAAsTAAALEwEAmpwYAAAAB3RJTUUH3wQeDywT3CnvewAAFz1JREFUeNrtnHl0VEW+x7+/qnu7 s7IjDIiyJd0dXGaeM0fBUZAlSacbHZcnvnEUXFC2JJ2g5+mZcXT2eaNmI4RNR50RfTPuQzobCCI6 oL73xmWg050EwiZbEtmydPe99Xt/dCfgMpIOi3hOf8/hJGnq1q2u+6lf/X6/qltAXHGdJFtWbs/v DlfBaddnz/H07bozcu98AEC6M0/PmFk46Jo7Hh1qd3n6pWUuAsUf9Tcjh9sDX2VJz99jrp3dz5Lc 7wIhNStAfC7awMxsGsHjx/Zu27f/n28Z3Z+nZy9AoKaiG/5UkBgVY9UC4KNHdu3e/enHL7EtJw/+ qrKY25c+/T6S1qRRIJkSw2UEgMG82+ctOmbPWpQIXf93Yp5JQoSV4oMM9bQWR/AbsKrOXPgqSzBm xu1C14f8QEpxN0OkE/MQEFm6uYw+xLMmIlJST2gfOOaKtgGjv/cmm8bz/uole7uhBwCllBCa8ACY DiDUe/DpaP9RF/7y04/xt1ihtznz4K8ug7AkOkHiURAGRPujN0oG06sUVP8JAND0G0HUykodVkpt E0LWg1EYt/jfAPT+6iVIm3H/QM2aXAyi/wCgn23Ie6EwgEPM6rGOzuPP7HpzVc8MYMvOGyx0/XUA P4yxzt1Q6l6ft7iuG+ZT9k90drA586YJqf0JRCNivGcNmGb7Kp84CAB2t+c+IWWtMsynSIigyZgn WP1WxFE8t/JXL4HNuciuJaR8AKLZACznAfSIDr4RRGJlUmLqY2mZuYk91remrNXo7HQCeCvGOkdB iGV2l+daUwUpMohy/yXwACLQ5+RNF1JbHSP0CsB6ocRcX+UTBy+f9Yvuee24aRg2AAGl1BIBlQHA lHEUz63sLs8YIbWXAXKcr20komuFpPCAi7+7qaF2Kduy8xCoKw8NTZ9YA6IJANJiqG4gkbhGkPZJ S8OW5tbG92HLXoTWxvc/V6i14b1o/+TnCKGtANHI2Nw9tUEZxr2+quJdGe4H8M/XfgsAuMA2qRmM a0EAAWEQXQMSz8TBP0can7UAIyZM0Rj4A4ic532DiX4ghfZJS8MWf2vje3C4CuDzFrcPTZ+4EUSO GOEfRERThqZdFWhp2NLwRehtzjy0Nr4He06+k4QsA9HYkwLVXkTpqoqh7vZXle2yuzzweYsAAJfc 9DC2vvF4aIjt6gAxH1BG+LDQtE31lUX/jIN/jtTW9AH6j/23S4XUlgL4NvS7BUTDBqddWdXasKUj edBgHNnbgJbA5qND066qAdFlAMbHUN8AEE0eknbl1paGLU3pWfPR2vQ/sGXnwl+zpNunfwpEY2JL TalqVmpOvbd0v93tQb03kim7fNYv8MnLv8Ilt/wc217/failYcuB1qYPPm0JbG7r/YiK67Q09prZ 2L7pOdhcBU8LIe4+RfF2ZvUhmM2z1yJmErI/QN89RcEWVsbN9d7St7s/iFp+OLI9/aCJ50E0M8ab 72HTuK2+qvTdE8Fz7nTS9OeJxDCAY3BveKMyQ7f5q8r3xzyhxbE8h/79zMXbCTiVRTtgGqFbYYT8 ID4ryQelwu1CT/mZ1CwPnqJoJ1j9XJnhEn91eU+Wx5FTAF9VMRw5nuEQohxEN8fYhE/ZNGfXV5Ws s+fk5VDEp78wti/B6xUHf+KvWrrP7spHvbc0psvjefxzpDGT7xxOoNRTp6OJhWY5Xl+95MDZbE96 9iLVi2JWBo0mqWsAesCPQg9fVcl+h6vAA4BBdEsMwegIkvJ5u8vzBJGYGzP0rF41w13zAnXLDvUF egCIpzPPlZgHgFVv+pvO0UxMveQjCeAvlfVVRXxpn7d4D5RaAOCvMbZ7GAn5SxClx9iPr5mhzvsD dcsOXX7rL/oEfRz8c8k91LfVrRRfB7TDVQBfVckhYp4P4KUY606MEfqNZrB9bqBuecvI7znx0V8f Pa0vFVdcfZbPW4wMdyG2VRa1EbMHwCtnacbcEOo6dktg7YpWANj7j+rTHs1xxXVa2lZZ1P3zU2b2 MPMbZxZ69YoZ6ri1ad2qFgAYO2XOGZnG4orrtJXhLgQA1FcW7ekyjXsYXH1moOc3TCM4L1C3PAL9 5NnY/tazcfDjOr+s/picPDRXl7V2hYz/YKDutMIi8NvKDN0XqKloGXpZJgBg+8bnzljgEldcZ0w7 qsow1pmP5tqyI4YZvgvMm/rI/f+Yoc4f+6vLD9pz8nDo47oz2s44+HGdcVkpsjwkFGcAGIje76U/ WUmkWTMAoL4PL7HEwY/rnMqRsxi+qifhyFk8VWqWZ0F0Cfq0LkEThJArbTn50wAgPWvR2QF/fOa9 /7LQoIwffmMd+Xv+amNhdxfEKTuPZM+JBLdR6KdBYDUII0+z2tFCyuW2nPyrD71fAwBIy1pw5sC3 uTxorHsKAGDLyU+yuwv72V2elIun3KEBQNu2d2DLzsXFE2870aKrbz8HnZmPh4iilsSTbHcX9Le7 8lIi2YPiOG3nkeqrirotfhYEVoEwvI8uzhct/3gh5TMXTHRNAYCG2gqMz5x/2rVqNlcB/N5ijHcu supCzwHRzSAaCRIdiSmDP7TneP5ifNbyMctU7Ny8BADooqtu4+Z3V59d6F2RLaY2Z+5wktqNIDEd rIZAaG2OmQVeI9T5YkPt8vbRV96E5vdejZP3DSrd5UHAWwKbq3AGCEtAPRvxztBqNaUJKf9oc+Uv 8HtLaxrrlp2+xfd7i5E2Y56uSf1RCPlXABcws48ZR4jkXSBxU+Pm5xHw/ha2bI/D5sxdkDjwAnF2 oS9AvbcEdlf+ZULqlUTiF2AOA/gIgA4SFZolaSUAFG95JU7eeQB9ustzHQk8DYrpBZVY4B8jhFxu y8mbCgDjps89PYsPANKaeCWRWARwxfbqpQVBM6giroYng5XZ1jNKNPk7QAR9lUVLbdkLBMDKXxMZ fTbnIklCaMo0jUDNUtPhLiCYBoWDXawnJAqlwkoZBjesW4UxU+dgx/pn4cheKKBbRbBln7F984sn pk1vMew5nvEk5CsATGUat/irTuwJt7sLHyGiXzpcnvU3Ej0NALasRULTrNjqfVKNnzFPaLpFM4yQ 0Vi3XNndBZ9zjWyZC4k0oSsAQsGor1miHO7FEBrBDAVJKaZATbkaN/lO0lMG6qxM1b0t1+ZcBH91 eZz4qKLQTxVCvECgYej9Dk0GsBvAhb1PstDFQmrPpjtzbw1UL9kCAOOuuwtNG57pm49PBBuBUjs+ 2/+boBlUYyfPjvptJdvqq8v2292Fl9rdBb8CIYfBAx3XL36UpD6ZVWS/uN2VP0pIPY9IVgjN4klz 5g0B4YcQ2hTTCPaHkLeTsKSRZgUA7Fj/bHTYWX7CwK0nQx+J4BdaSYifARgMZczphj4tMxLYGEdb iwH4mGTPLiWh67NMNq6wu/IGadbEXBKyTLMkzLG7C1LqK4uRFvUL7dm5ScJivYWEViyEVkaadnOG +8FkX+WTICYCiSuElNMczvwheurgOURiKUn9pw534WgAfYaehM7f0rcf+Kt89YxocsHuLswWQjwT I/QAeKMKh25gVjH6qTRKapaX7c6I5W/a8AzGTpndN/CZEWIwEvoNvgIAxk36EUZNnBUJVtweHazG EsS1AOsE2gXm4QB0SkhSdmdeOgmtEkRzABwn0ERNaqVgKgLRJD0hSYDoEZCYQqTR+BnzozNE7kSQ XMashkXacKJvSdMmgOhGMK/0eUu3AMDFE29GQ10Fsn+zGY1vP3cczDuEoFEAMGbK7FSQ+DmAWSQs xQT6LohSiWQRQAXjZi7SGuqWYWjalZI0vRREv2dABygZJFYqNm8GgPajLTpI3A6SD0DKYgAuAJ1E 4h4GHre7Pal9pcc0QocJpHr7dM8B0L2xsgrA8c89nCj02yqLkeEuyCKiZQS6KKZ2M79uhoO3+WuW fKjCwcXM6rWTBllvNJI0/Xl7Tv4NALD9ref69uWVUu8ACAipP+Vwe36y9nc3Yvfmv8CWkwdr8qBw vbfkDbB6nxmthtH5n0qZuQDe9P+tCKTpL4FZKNP4MZvmA8w8D0AygEuZlV9YEg0AYRI0hCRR49pl UQtt+SmzOuCvLCkGgIRo9sbuytVIiMlgbmdl1kTcmIXYuTniy29ZcV9324MAkDr2ikQ9ecB4AINI ajeD1TuKzft9a4puZ/AaIsyxmHIYAAyxXf1rEN3EysxXysxjpeaxUtsBnjhu8l26JTF1IEDfI9BE Bj42g+13+SqL85nVSjA7WfGAvlK2650X9jNwvBdFwwzVfg7AP9SLMkECNzObxgnoPd3QT2MSqwGM jm3+4DUqHLo/ULP0AAAEait2maGu+azUKzEO+O+Q1FbYnbkzAGDsD2PLMmoAEKgq3WFzeWYJIV8C yecc7sIsxebDfm/pHgBIz17QH4ImgPldKSzt9d5SI5puvBPAZcx8m7+qbGvUkh8hqe0A6BCb5laS QgHaPmZzuDIiZ6s4XAVuMGUpM5gZ8dPuRdOGp6IdIyWYLgXQahqhrQDgr13a0+DDuz6JDlkxACA+ tv1/O0dmTLkEwCBmfrW+smhVhntx1PzQVhDNYFKWdGfeGBDdA1Z/qveWVNrd+boyzEFCt0xg5hea Nj4TtrsLBgO4HIQ3ibG0Ye3KjqgZU0x0lEDGafkMrN4kEvecotQQQbIm44YHzuoLKazUqWcfouPK NN/3V5147XBbZQky3J5MJvEygFhnwL+bRvDuQO3SltE/mInmD9YgLXM+GuqWHUifMW++sCYSkbgp hvqGkWZ5wZa1wO2vrXgPAEZfezua3z51xlGkOyMrYn5vyYehziOXM/OjILpeCO3P9hzPCAAQUh8K IAPMm+qrSrt6rpZaAYCdOzeufjmyBpAHCBATUpiw/+jeQBNAJsDNkcOBKNnuLkiEEAtYqRoVNN+a cNNDJ6CPzK6SCKkADu//R3XLtMc2fKnRF33/hiQwD1XK2BW9ZgKAzmDXkUcibkWwm7QkMCsAHULK WSAaaoZDbfacvHlEcqXULZ+A4YVSL0SqMYcR0QBm9ZSvsqgjMugXpoDoUgAfM3P76cFmlnfPVF+j BDBfxIpHseILz9Y/nHBPvq7BH4Foa3QdBVGj5WKSf44den7LDHXdEKhZ2sLMaP5gDQCgoW4Z0jPn I7B2+SEVDuYzq1i3NA8RlkSvLXvRNABofns1xky+49TgB6rLkTZjHgCgad1THUbbod8w8wNg/gEI 10dKySEMGs7MH3VfmHzxBAuB0sH8v53HD5ppmfPhryoDQfYn0BgwAgPHXW6awc4wwE0ADZd6ghXM kwBMAtTjjeuXcfDYZ1+KpEBEANSxQ828++9//VKjk4eNvQrAWAAvR01TOjO/u2Pd0y3js+bDX1OO lKSBBGAcwG3HDjYfIxIZYA5qlsTpJLQcVqqFmecqs/Pu+qqSfdEp4vsAdoI50NNBpPcH0yXM5vt7 9u482ue0n3MRhNQ+AfMfvyVBbQczlvi9pW0TZj4IX1UJHK4CJ4RYAeCCGKe611U4dGugdmmLu+hD jJ/2+V0CgWhePlBbsUeFQ7nM7I2xrYOFbl1tz8m7AQB2bPxz73x8oUfOKbVl56Hx739mVqH3QHQU wPAojWlgPkgkel6AHmmfPBJgqZTRAAAk9WhRupQZEwn8fyoUVA3rVhhQajsBgzqO7DNIyN+AeW24 s30zADSuXfGF7IdQrLgLwGBb9sILAictVoy99g7Yrpungeh6ECWF248+YXd5RhCQDvAnAEDhyKkc I6+bbQdhKhgbDErrAtAfQBODf6RM49Zw59GH6yuLXvVXVxwBALtzoRUkJwPYZnR27jvhDMp+THwR EW1t/+j1L2Sfer98Hqguh29NkanM8H8B+Pj8z+VwUX1l0d8AYOuax+FwFUyDEKuBGLchMFcp07jf X1N+CAB8a8rQtP7pLxXrNr6B2qW7jc5js5nV2hhbPIykVpHuXDQdAMZNvftUrk6epfs0W39NGWyZ C6Qg/TIwJwDUnHb1bUSAI5JzVT05fTaVAYCJRELkwZYhPSdvMBEVEpFipT40jh2NROlSfsZAZ0K/ 4XcBGA2lyprWrwp/ZT+FzTAxbwLRONKsnz+2QkpBidbrQJTPplnStOHp/QANQeRgIysANKxfGbXU 4t8BGsxKvXrg/ccVMR9j8MVsGqa/uqyraf0fDQAYP32uBgCKRAIRXU0MX+P6FccBIG36fIIy08E4 DNBeAHDMXKzZXQVDbM5ca6C2IqYnY8vJg796yU5lmncCaD5PkTeZudxXWfTIhOsf7HZvpkOIVxDZ aRmTT6/YvNdfXXZwyLhJEa9iw1dPeA1rlwMAxk+bi8Y3V7WGjn92KzOvjzHVOUJqlmfTsxde2bQ+ cp/x/2KhSxNSPmF3FWxkVocIIJC4BEI8COAfMILVlDpUMrNJJIYy6DKHq+A7wWNtWxvWLd/tuH7x ThLyJntO/gsgmUiC7gFjHDM3Q8o9jZue4WiqshXAYUH0EJhrfFUlm6IdCp/383tu/LVLTJsr/1UB cQuBHre7C/oD+DtAOlhNIqE9BvA6VuFfRUfgCAjNQkyZDndhJit1iITIBNFPwfyk6ji0KepCVRHo Fhbi13Z3wWowQECaYlMCeI5NYxSkdYDisK9nnFkSBBF9H8BBVmrv6KvuBJTKIqLXQGIugJjyaP6q suiqdPFHtqzcScKiPwlQdh+AOlvyg1FhOdZeDgDDvxOE6S7IAclVAPePsa53lDJ+7PeW7vviAuLX qfHNVRg39W40rf/j4fTM+XOkJfFZEE2NAf6RUre+ZHPmzvZXL9nQuG4Vxlw9Czve/cvnwSeidCa6 R5DoBIMANpnVKwQuSRw29sDRI35IQ38NQI4Q8mlmHGJl5ADoMEOhO6VueVFIfR2zCjB4BRvBF0Hi PkAcPmHGzQMk9AQwpygz/PPuj78IfU/ve0sP2V35c4jEQ0T0IEASgGSINmb1iGBe6a8ubwMAJjGJ gM0MriCIpSS1FLAKM6tHSNHywFurDQA42uz/736j01OJ6GcEMYuJw8zqgID2h2hYcTmrcCOb6v8i bt9CMIcJJo0AaKsywwct/VMEE19CQuonr2jHouiqNKJxxY/t7oJrAGQCNAXgNAIlx5jTPh0pBloJ +JCZqyH4nfrKkvru/9yzC9cISX8Aq0HoXSqWosH7awz1mN9buicW6LvVba0Ddct227Nz74Km/YpA 7uis3pt+uYCkvio9a8E9gdqKjV+EHgDI7i5IIiETwu2f6XpSfxOAoQyjw19dFsq4/kGk3fQQGl/9 L6HYTGZlJJDQzc62vYeb330xsq3Bvbi/EEKHMoyuwweO6CkDJEAJDOoAoAI15bC7PBNIyvVsqj/U e4ufjAR7eQh8xXnpNlch/NFDP+3OPJ2klqyMoE5SY0CEjHCwvbGuwrTf+DDqX/sd7O7CtwA0dh49 vCCp38AkEkJXygizET7mryk3Ha5CKDMcOZ8xc4EU1oQUFQpaSbcoAEGEVEd9XamZnjUvgYS0KpOP k6aZgaoy2LIXUnRNgpURbtdTB6Gr7dN+Qk9IlZbE/f6q0j4f8zfm2juw4+1IEJaWvVCTmiUBzBqR OJfvSDCDFRSHOvf4unZ+XMvR9DUCNRWwOfOsQmrJMdfJ3FHvLQ72BfqeeG7yndi+8U/R1eH8BIJM jCW9ywCxETzur1kaPK0eGnDxZb0uO/qkwMKWnZfgcBcWOdyF2xyugu9E/K77z8hTu/D7PyL7zMIu x/WLz8jm/PTsRSe1e+HnfgLAsAlTv/L3uL59OisLJONnzNUIYjSTTNStCdMAehisHvRVFv/pq/z6 vmrs1Hvs1uQBPmUaP/JXlb4Rf5xx9VZn5exMM2RYrMmpP9F0q8tUysqsishQL3+dX98XJab0u5JI bFWKffFHGdc3Dv6OjWs6L73hjlUDB6TWHv6sbU+7ofY11ZQZZ/o+wwf1fxtS+6ir49h2f/xZxhWD /h8GmoXifjFrZgAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== ------=_Part_20283_1996112529.1516271139184-- From nobody Mon Jan 22 16:05:53 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD15126CD6 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:05:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.72 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=derechosdigitales.org header.b=BZ7Y8Kaw; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=AHHyg8bH Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dh3QNAmXDmq1 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:05:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E07D4126BF6 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:05:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3570321695 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:05:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:05:49 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= derechosdigitales.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=7CPf4B AR8wIvzsbkII/BN205w8yjTO7L2lTf4a4328s=; b=BZ7Y8Kaw5ff48AA6gDA3FO 9Z9z41X5JMnqYtsFjNv5pU6n/KhONt+qI+shb6vna4TAFHk9x8tJCEk8HicMUSFw 9yyourKGhj50LdgUFaALRziuMvH0yzcfX9ygg7aFr8Nia0jEHxofPUZFklz99289 yqqRtRRdlppZZBsUqNQCXO0vAsLXlEuxquMEWPoCSltaiWn4VXgwACUPj3WZeePI 2rrxihL+7bPNyTHJimPxFmIGdKJfPX4eyQyie0m+A3/Oj3QkHSVXYsv4MNEIrK5a zHGD5aMUiCC2L4O3K9bydc0kCOYm6wy9RSOh9zIh+PTB4Eat9RlPqZ65ufiKkdgw == DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=7CPf4B AR8wIvzsbkII/BN205w8yjTO7L2lTf4a4328s=; b=AHHyg8bHbULsuXzPDzhPPK MgQYHLXTJQxMKK+dp2Wmo/1lv7M3GE8aotF6+o3zWdOsj2ePvus62gxK3AyvZz+p zml8+TqCHzQlxeLTUK2bsboyQjOV+988/r2jrr+uqED5p8Ouiz+BC/fqkoBh4CEW 3HL6GCAvfyr+ccECpY94bgZeEjXmHSSK6yT+IKPvlfAn7s/hGDoMt9pOalEIwjtt 9aGafJyX8V/co3v5WWViHaOOLRDxqBaEyambzZ4S90qwEd07TSHeoVmKFvO9CTq+ CEpsMTYo0Adl5CwmGvk9Gt7CVPWt4D180GspaKwnnqEvfC9ENHLMh41/8Pn8Npwg == X-ME-Sender: Received: from Giselas-MacBook-Air-6.local (unknown [189.240.2.217]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B5B3F24547 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:05:48 -0500 (EST) To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <21d44e51-ed5a-08ac-ab8e-712235e3c8bc@acm.org> From: Gisela Perez de Acha Message-ID: <127d8627-ad2a-f7d2-c385-956999f0a9fd@derechosdigitales.org> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:05:44 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <21d44e51-ed5a-08ac-ab8e-712235e3c8bc@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: es-ES Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Freedom of Association on the Internet X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 00:05:51 -0000 Hi. I will respond inline > Questions: > > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc I believe it is. Not because it is already done, but because it is an interesting thing, with a promising approach, and most of all, people are working on it. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Farrell and Bortzmeyer have expressed in this mailing list the possibility for it to be an RG document as well. > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the > group consensus for inclusion at the moment. Please be specific. Yes, we are currently working on the argument of the "Internet as an association" and the section regarding "spam and filter bubbles" so it reflects what the group really thinks. > - Who is interested in working on it Me :) Anyone else? Are the authors willing to give up change control I cannot make this decisions unilaterally, I would be fine, but let's ask Niels as well. > - What remains to be be done on this? Clean, edit and add all the comments. Cheers Gisela > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > From nobody Tue Jan 23 01:25:32 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 665AF126B6D for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:25:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3yPHE00s9lqr for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:25:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D47B112DA48 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:25:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edupV-0007v7-H1; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:25:21 +0100 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:25:18 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever To: S Moonesamy Cc: Gisela Perez de Acha , hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180123092518.GB913@mir> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20180108132649.114ec2e0@elandnews.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GRPZ8SYKNexpdSJ7" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20180108132649.114ec2e0@elandnews.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: 3c11394861542ed80f8a69179537bf2c Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Comments on draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:25:31 -0000 --GRPZ8SYKNexpdSJ7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi S., On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 03:24:15PM -0800, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Niels, Gisela, >=20 > I have some comments on draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02. According to > the Research Group Charter, one of its objectives is to "expose the relat= ion > between protocols and human rights". The research questions (Section 3) = are > about internet architecture and whether the internet is an assembly or > association. That seems like stretching that objective. >=20 Why? The right to freedom of association is a human rights. If the Internet= architecture could be understood as an assembly, it should also be protect= ed as such. > There is the following in Section 5: "The Internet is increasingly being > used as a platform for protest". The platforms are usually social network > services. The draft describes them as "closed and centralized Internet > platforms" and argues that they are out of scope. Sometimes, some of tho= se > platforms are neutralized as they are viewed as causing internal issues. > How will it look if the IETF advocated that? I think there are many more examples, take for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA >=20 > "the Internet has also played a crucial role by providing a means > for the fast dissemination of information that was otherwise > mediated by broadcast media ..." >=20 > The internet has also been used to spread "fake news". It may be viewed = as > a significant problem when that affects the internal affairs of a country. > I am not sure what this has to do with 'fake news'. We're just discussing t= he distribution of content, not the quality of it. =20 > A mailing list (Section 6.1.1) is not a protocol. >=20 Mailinglists are the topic is quite a few RFCs, and therefore within the pu= rview of this doc. Take for instance RFC6783. > What does version control (Section 6.2.2) have to do with protocols? >=20 There are several protocols for version control (svn, git, etc). > There is the following in Section 6.4.2: "In order for edge-users to conn= ect > to the Internet ..." What is the meaning of "edge-users"? >=20 Conform RFCRFC3935. All the best, Niels > Regards, > S. Moonesamy >=20 --=20 Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 =20 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 --GRPZ8SYKNexpdSJ7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAlpm/34ACgkQDtg/OkaK yLONwg/+KF6c2CRx9yglOEyaJJVwiklvXJLb6I/VQsYmZXrfinl3bfhiiDJIhwwY sM3j8zioS/eDG4cLSkoovZzIB/DwEFYzvekTbukwmX7ldlvv9SrkcFonJpCMyebg qpu7b1e8yD9aLx7Z7uSJar8IimzhLoEmWaOS+WbeGFN2ORmaR/w/3dDUPTkvb99y ElmqHHluKSEgBu07F6JEWL5u9f2eCfZoqLJ1+x2LKa5C9zKuY5oyAlGee9+l8jEH WbaY7QmR/VdVD97PsXC5y+rJXQYRZNOJao1vM38ElaJZcjp632Ra2vUGqhfmfoQd 82oXZEpeST4yBVSaG8s9X+nYRCfwETze2wJCHtIIe0Oy4BBk3NmISk/kguVOLhOl 1fxWBHroQach1WtsAuwEBppgFj8a+wCBZKzgZo4DYjtKYX0nLYhRlPmZFzTTcU1o 2wE5Se3amGPeOGJuBBzOL3U439v/znZta9Qg8EDj9QEIUKi7i7QdVW7ybR6oE+rm QtxBRMSzJk+zETvI+PSpdA4kWwSpo2n4R371YweceC8T7qux/pXfJz418v2AG27N 13fIscvXV0mkWb1+ZrrlUji4zJKwBz8k6psDXn7Qpm+zfDLtVgQtFyJFYig75VjH tc2a4eLMGx95dxZE+Zj/zir+0S8WXUcXyF3LaC+t0Va4ZXWHZBg= =JBdH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --GRPZ8SYKNexpdSJ7-- From nobody Tue Jan 23 01:27:17 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43A2B126B7E for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:27:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OMgDHAKSOdiY for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:27:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99C94124BAC for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:27:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edurG-00005V-W7; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:27:12 +0100 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:27:07 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever To: Mallory Knodel Cc: hrpc@irtf.org, Sunil Abraham Message-ID: <20180123092707.GC913@mir> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20180109095740.0a12b1a0@elandnews.com> <021d5c49-da76-e51c-849b-7f793a37ad7b@article19.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eRtJSFbw+EEWtPj3" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <021d5c49-da76-e51c-849b-7f793a37ad7b@article19.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: d9b0ae15ee993d77aea4f0208a5c5b8c Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Applying, testing and improving the guidelines X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:27:15 -0000 --eRtJSFbw+EEWtPj3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi S. and Mallory, I think this is an example: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manyfolks-hrcrfc7725-00 and I know Sunil is also working on a few. Best, Niels On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:46:37PM +0300, Mallory Knodel wrote: > Hi, >=20 > Three unrelated notes about the guidelines: I don't know if the > guidelines draft "draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines-01" is fully ready to > be put to use. It's not been adopted by the RG afaik. Lastly, it doesn't > look like there's been any discussion of it on the list. >=20 > There are some folks looking at IETF standards, and their larger WGs, > against these guidelines. And they've got a good idea of the difficulty, > necessary changes to guidelines and I'm sure a lot of insight at this poi= nt. >=20 > I am not one of the people doing this work at this time. >=20 > -Mallory >=20 > On 09/01/18 09:12 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > > Hi Mallory, > >=20 > > I read your message [1] about "applying, testing and improving the > > guidelines on rfc8280".=A0 Have you tried applying the guidelines in the > > IETF? > >=20 > > Regards, > > S. Moonesamy > >=20 > > 1. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hrpc/current/msg01104.html > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > hrpc mailing list > > hrpc@irtf.org > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Mallory Knodel > Head of Digital :: article19.org > gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --=20 Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 =20 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 --eRtJSFbw+EEWtPj3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAlpm/+sACgkQDtg/OkaK yLMI6xAAki1FkfIDtatpELXLHb16/6a7B3hxYnLaT5hYzk08P8hymqmCJCFeNf8U BCTwCKgLHll11IZ/UXys9W15O9JsQEJUPotv/HaG0BlH9rMjlnjMNQpyx7JsZ7gx vrtCsF8y4gkMti5MR/Be3+wydJJAqW/eweyBEc5nnTd3U4G/NouLmbQm9TVjXpoV lCQn00JaBWwjG9xwGFOAGlrpULLvdheK7v5/jypiQrMdqFE+3A4H4ZDAtiQD6pUm e+LayF62kUBodP3N71UbtfEn8EFq4h8FaudW4UPiJPFCBqw7Ypm07Iy/s+1BAoUP eh7j8ytayMlabx3WFVxGixrhjUELVatV7wOh+KRKJTfIbLurmAgWdvwLUsIaoVIj EqoO4/8RiA5j3aFtNtySAAmRfygawN73VxMpNr2fRJbupNEUmM71GlT88fXcAmVr ZdJRJV+Ndj2QUwbMi8pslhmog+5ehALW7KVDLfVuQYnGBhsC5s9imBf85Vzpv603 sUoBFDs2Mex3ckDLmRxiE/jcbzo7F9riE06UfdFZe1pgukAW8o8O4KWG1z4eAg+I jGsJ1XHKkfm85M0Wwzh8e6fyKXjXNllIfnN7iimZ8sRQYDxPkCCLG/ut49lO2wxH SI5dmpJ087shJzHVn4PKHIvJ0mON8FsMx+KQJXCRbxaJ5Zt2zAE= =/i89 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --eRtJSFbw+EEWtPj3-- From nobody Tue Jan 23 01:39:14 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20312124205 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:39:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H2S-vl_wmlo1 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:39:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E95A12DA03 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:39:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edv2q-0003Nl-6b; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:39:08 +0100 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:39:07 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever To: Corinne Cath Cc: Avri Doria , hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180123093907.GH913@mir> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="SdvjNjn6lL3tIsv0" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: aaa3b708a984912a81ea67a52d88c378 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Guidelines for Human Rights Protocol Considerations X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:39:13 -0000 --SdvjNjn6lL3tIsv0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hiya, On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 07:20:23PM +0000, Corinne Cath wrote: > In line: >=20 > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 5:15 PM, avri doria wrote: >=20 > > Re: draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines-01 > > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines/ > > > > Questions: > > > > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? >=20 Yes, follows from RFC8280. >=20 > > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the > > group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. > > > > - Who is interested in working on it? > > >=20 > =E2=80=8Bme.=E2=80=8B > me too =20 > > > > - Are the authors willing to give up change control? > > Yes! > > - What remains to be be done on this? >=20 >=20 > =E2=80=8BMuch.=E2=80=8B Roadtesting, tweaking, adding. Accepting this as RG doc would help for that. Best, Niels --=20 Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 =20 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 --SdvjNjn6lL3tIsv0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAlpnArsACgkQDtg/OkaK yLNxoA//ao6EpBBK4lnL/s4qMmUC49gXNMFfaJsPCb1+o51aR+TQHpqJxSeV4o3M 26oDT0tci3Qc9yRdmKwPwaejRQx0AXiRFDgNXKVeGkPTFxLrrhNx87PDs2lNRsSV JpG69u0WdaRKYeLLEKb7++LiVLsRzc940I4Rui9JG6Fz7x1TUEIfavRjQJmXbNFT 7jSji50sEzfav9GwMe9YXIgNjqgxXQIK+DXHQ51Hb56ReGK3I3LiFsQ9sfXK6Njk n/0aEewyl15u4S11PfDtKdf5yyDD7+nO8t85rDqS2n1iSFeb/wSTx47OU3TJT5jk 7AHOKMD91OzO64rLge3txCo6wuhj2LgmEYiqULBVZRJpnLDquQVFL21HJfmYu/F7 j6X6zboOOPJU//Wb1HfgxIEhqyWSnshAHD0Mwmw7W/DcOGJoKLyifN/5AJ95udKu apkAMTXkBT208bXRnh+RAT3dSyj4AKmP9BaSoLlMokW2fMSMARanZEj/CavmS5z9 dpT23SU35qK4hG+ku3cNZVDWo62QxWZjCn5jANo6c70ivoETSySt6xZPlRMhpyud f9rDWV4+7+BMzjEiieF8tGQoAwMNRWzARCXOaWfs6mdWWcmQXOQnTbgRmbKAUI7r 0l+/34rWpLsH4vkK5Ibj3NoTZh3+HuiECMt43g/ARjwnFnXIFXc= =EzMf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --SdvjNjn6lL3tIsv0-- From nobody Tue Jan 23 01:53:21 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C8A912DA05 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:53:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hcm1RDlfh_CJ for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:53:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 915E112D956 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:53:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edv0E-0002g0-4B; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:36:27 +0100 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:36:25 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180123093625.GF913@mir> References: <20180118094058.xf6amdl3saumvrjr@sources.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="QXO0/MSS4VvK6f+D" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180118094058.xf6amdl3saumvrjr@sources.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: 3b058867a8808b2a73617ccb478d635a Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] About draft-harkins-tls-dragonfly X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:53:20 -0000 --QXO0/MSS4VvK6f+D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 lan= guage. Best, Niels On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:40:58AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > If I'm correct, this draft, which is currently in the RFC Editor > Queue , will be the > first RFC with an explicit "Human Rights Considerations" section. >=20 > 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.) >=20 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --=20 Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 =20 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 --QXO0/MSS4VvK6f+D Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAlpnAhkACgkQDtg/OkaK yLP0Ng//SXAJAGUxgvkRdDit6w3WQeM1KATDlQayxL1mfxEVln1I3gOvszqANvfQ PlQZ3hVm99gWaMXYHZ8m+r4n17VWY5vOlDQeXt9Ltv4mFldW6POdjt2GfjwNH49B BNa+S5V8VsSIKgEjW+RQRwSBS7v8I8DuM5mvdjoFb0M+113sc1V2eT0fu+UMxHLt /9xbDj6ex6l1Z3kEhl1nfkHIQmPC0FeJtvOdSYLxFsa+sJJq/hd2lUSeNRNIQ9wr P0DZcFoW+JhGSs9lIIoeTDMY+9xD5tKw50c4hYcck6LQXB3BW5g1LuN6aOn2WUaN MhJXpPC9GalUsOITKnDFWyqnSbTr67EZu6yjuzbqsUSesGH6dm+cgttMcsQ82yXV suZs6bElfh+P1CANgne3SMJZg7A1nQWtGl9B/QlEXWUWikAB7HU/WnGFV8/BLrR1 C7rufhvoCOPTlOtHutEzj1s+RwqpHBgvxjofck8rAeT7A6c8ugoFjQKyqFkMPtn0 asXBHB3rrlFTkwTr8YYoqIY6eM62uRDk9KBd0dYuJ6KC55ync6XJadspxme6D9Mb Vxxc3gzPF5MEt9x1z42jkMrNJl3vSuq5x3hafgzxPqn5WifI9clsCaZfbU2zSJ6x P9SAjR0rmOE9F/oWmQKuPjN6XIvBxoMnXkiyQx14nKpVVXN8AkA= =SvmR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --QXO0/MSS4VvK6f+D-- From nobody Tue Jan 23 01:59:43 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D24A12DA12 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:59:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pfgsObYxXSjx for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:59:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 352C812DA0C for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:59:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edvMf-0001o1-FS; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:59:38 +0100 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:59:36 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever To: avri doria Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180123095936.GB28814@mir> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20180111122247.0f234940@elandnews.com> <0f243795-faa5-62d4-e422-3d3152ce01fb@article19.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20180112131332.109f3e40@elandnews.com> <4b2b5ca6-be47-e3cf-afe5-0310d617ad0b@acm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="H+4ONPRPur6+Ovig" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4b2b5ca6-be47-e3cf-afe5-0310d617ad0b@acm.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: 882182757433e81d12f518c644a03b9a Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Applying, testing and improving the guidelines X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:59:42 -0000 --H+4ONPRPur6+Ovig Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I'd be keen to understand this better: On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:14:02PM -0500, avri doria wrote: > Hi, >=20 > One reason I am interested in more expertise in this part is that I see > the RFC 8280 as the strong statement of a hypothesis, and that now we > have to demonstrate both its usefulness and its validity. >=20 > For usefulness I see engineers and advocates as essential.=A0 Are the > questions useful, and is there evidence of improvement in the Internet. >=20 > For scientific validity of the exercise, I think we need more social > science knowledge in building the experiment, measurement and documentati= on. >=20 What discipline / methods do you think would be needed to achieve this? I a= m not sure this answer can be found in social science, but am more than hap= py to be educated on this. Maybe we could potentially learn more from pract= itioners who did 'human rights impacts assessments', such as the Danish Ins= titute for Human Rights. But they have limited technical expertise. We could also ask Cisco and Ericsson who do human rights impact assessment = how they handled the technical parts. But not sure which science / discpilines could help. But am happy to help b= uilding bridges in academia. Best, Niels > But of course I agree, the more eyes the better. Nonetheless some eyes > of a particular sort might be really helpful in this research. >=20 > avri >=20 >=20 > On 15-Jan-18 07:26, Corinne Cath wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I am not entirely sure why the guidelines would require social > > science/advocacy expertise perse. I think anyone who is interested in > > what the potential impact of their work is can pick up the RFC and > > apply or test the guidelines. The more eyes the better I would say! > > > > best, > > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:30 PM, S Moonesamy > > wrote: > > > > Hi Mallory, > > At 10:32 PM 11-01-2018, Mallory Knodel wrote: > > > > In a way draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines-01 does relate to the > > RFC afaik > > because it is a document that intends to be more precise and > > easier to > > apply to IETF standards than the RFC itself, > > > > > > First of all, thank you for the reply.=A0 I do not have any > > expertise in social sciences.=A0 =A0It would be useful for a person > > reviewing the draft to have some expertise of that and some > > experience of technical topics discussed in the draft.=A0 A person > > would have to do advocacy in order to apply or test the guidelines. > > > > Regards, > > S. Moonesamy > > _______________________________________________ > > hrpc mailing list > > hrpc@irtf.org > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > > > > > > > > > > > --=20 > > Corinne Cath > > Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute > > > > Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath > > > > Email: ccath@turing.ac.uk & > > corinnecath@gmail.com > > Twitter: @C_Cath > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > hrpc mailing list > > hrpc@irtf.org > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --=20 Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 =20 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 --H+4ONPRPur6+Ovig Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAlpnB4gACgkQDtg/OkaK yLNvWg/9FEFXD4W5djDsy7jyj6tiI/mqUFoM1qRzN0I/25BznfEwj8Hn7tWDhBjF BMAdGOSoaFLVu9RvnI7Qn5NhRA6EFM4fmu53eKz4Mucrb6hwDcxxaCos1l0Why3G heuQAP+RNImxmKrnp+Jv7fJuYwJd0sLmdX2xZkinMcUg3ne5ie7X0LDTyUfTj8E2 4FfshvU/DGzJLrmwi9ZegCInlqGyFy8OOQRrU0UEcwHov/MUBqu10eC4BW0Cfimh 6sdCHlzqO9MJC/4Ejgr9YssoiLUDwFvkx8UHr0yygkfWDmeiz8yetCIm2H8jCTFL KsrqS5CTjVy0VFEiT/MNAsSoWqdVpqdFtNUdtppKu60Gu40SuOpa7KJumEAJ52W5 4pYMpsj2kBmAmtGLeBQb5+b4AIgiToedDiUiQx/qbgQPbJm/LKDWNfrz7YcZNmkO VBEW++t9+oq3hxXCoga6jVRxQryHLOBWrQXBuPd++N0ILQxpP5o4LXrmpvhmPE8/ xfvTy32Jk5ywJtIM1Gl4rvgEWCfktNLAtWzrp9NzrxRG8ofmLYVsmIJ58s/cZJMt J90eYkCbKEFgs2slN5ws3E04hHg0E3BWnouCRNcXMTnSSSTlX+4NtPNTcLDWa+jy TYTRrauyhU+O2YejMV9S+uqnEerVoQsIJ1dwlaLtFP62UV3QaAU= =Zdri -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --H+4ONPRPur6+Ovig-- From nobody Tue Jan 23 02:00:50 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1AE512D956 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 02:00:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ee3eJtHwmsXN for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 02:00:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53EF5124E15 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 02:00:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edvNi-00028X-QF; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:00:43 +0100 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:00:41 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever To: S Moonesamy Cc: Corinne Cath , hrpc@irtf.org, Mallory Knodel Message-ID: <20180123100041.GC28814@mir> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20180111122247.0f234940@elandnews.com> <0f243795-faa5-62d4-e422-3d3152ce01fb@article19.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20180112131332.109f3e40@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20180115051417.11a4b428@elandnews.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="f+W+jCU1fRNres8c" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20180115051417.11a4b428@elandnews.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: bc82d6a2e188773012c482ed32290af0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Applying, testing and improving the guidelines X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:00:49 -0000 --f+W+jCU1fRNres8c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 05:51:05AM -0800, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Corinne, > At 04:26 AM 15-01-2018, Corinne Cath wrote: > > I am not entirely sure why the guidelines would require social > > science/advocacy expertise perse. I think anyone who is interested in > > what the potential impact of their work is can pick up the RFC and apply > > or test the guidelines. The more eyes the better I would say! >=20 > What kind of expertise is required to provide advice about the potential > impact? >=20 > I'll try and explain the "advocacy" part in a different manner. Let's say > that I have a strong interest in human rights. Wouldn't there be better > results if I tried to convince IETF RFC authors of the merits of taking t= he > potential impact into consideration? I think that is exactly the aim. Similar to security and privacy considerat= ions. Best, Niels >=20 > Regards, > S. Moonesamy >=20 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --=20 Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 =20 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 --f+W+jCU1fRNres8c Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAlpnB8kACgkQDtg/OkaK yLOhQA/+JSIQ4+uwd49NY77LkLaO+jvjspLJzipqOTbTxZ1Pjl7lXl+/pIxmpVxO GQcsnneeuay6Q0YGcqoXDOz5RJvzKpp1Xob5py2huIQRV/D+E5qV8RipRTvCT9Z2 E1MDmFteHMHlbH3XNMaLj+EzbU3T0RUcOIOi0w4eaizKUEm2+1IoWKh/XAz4UwJK w+btPS8VPNk4YNeLsOUVgm1TNrxP8C6eILhgNyNCu5g5RrMlK/AeKYrPw3u3sQtA 9YCv2x2Q2MATlGEgsc+bpMWRW4JugbSwY/PRfbtfyyT1bBfhzER2C4MFu22mdpjB 1AYspzhNC05UUTi2bex+3ZoT8wcQJl12Ftk4EdrYhLlcR9gzoc4vtTYGj1zYM//f 7UQUlY7C1DWRi4Aq41fcijlFVpst0WJvQ91ki3EgKL4w7upHfoLQ0rKYtTwcHert PyKpe2P3YfgF9SaczRbmum46ZOuaPjRVXjsArnZR8baKb12JM7gn3rsrwh1cMtNJ +TgCaHV0Uh+0z5lO91QyRCgpu2g1aN6en4DeIRbPw3jFeBo+EQlggP6ZBxGUxV+H Z3md/oLTKjWCx2s/hLARX3gXV3yIvxzXnJK7jPYGbudNEov3vzOMORN18LwlWSmN I7ubLyoqW+fDrpvtKgxj0fGYWZIJIunA2wJVSHOv5URDx4dmaAc= =huUg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --f+W+jCU1fRNres8c-- From nobody Tue Jan 23 02:02:35 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CC0312D956 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 02:02:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ub3do59L7RAq for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 02:02:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DECD12DA17 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 02:02:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edvPJ-0002aO-7j; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:02:21 +0100 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:02:20 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever To: Corinne Cath Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer , hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180123100220.GD28814@mir> References: <20180110072053.GA15439@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eheScQNz3K90DVRs" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: ee739817b6cd2655ac6326818c89325b Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] BGP and politics X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:02:33 -0000 --eheScQNz3K90DVRs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for this, I think this paper makes a similar point: https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/myth-decentralised-internet Best, Niels On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 09:58:48PM +0000, Corinne Cath wrote: > It was very good! I particularly liked the Q&A and the question about the > difference between the legal and moral responsibility. Which seems to app= ly > to some of the conversations we have been having as well. >=20 > best, >=20 > Corinne >=20 > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer > wrote: >=20 > > Very good talk at the last Chaos Computer Club Meeting on "BGP and the > > rule of custom". The speaker rightly notes that "Protocols are, at > > their root, systems of governance" and explains very well how the BGP > > system work, and the relations between the operators, how to exclude a > > rogue one, etc. "Peerings between Tier-1 is a bit like marriages > > between wealthy families" > > > > https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-9072-bgp_and_the_rule_of_custom > > > > _______________________________________________ > > hrpc mailing list > > hrpc@irtf.org > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Corinne Cath > Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute >=20 > Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath > Email: ccath@turing.ac.uk & corinnecath@gmail.com > Twitter: @C_Cath > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --=20 Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 =20 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 --eheScQNz3K90DVRs Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAlpnCCwACgkQDtg/OkaK yLNCCA//bLkPRpeWtjfZtFMbRVixgFlNJ96XoJkDjfWnpQYrtzhsTXLHm60Tfew6 dZmAzIKbyHpi6w/ad1mTjDRkjKC5EhoSbvlNn/xbCkdG1GmFVnn90qvZHGyoYT3k eF31rAJIS7jMZ9csCendmmjOT5JHILJRJmGwrMUCatwyANn1HKyRlZFuTgajntig F5p0AVDntmewOpvVqA9tMbXbw3hla6fRcz6BHQSDV4Pnpy8ow56VvYnZtVCFQ0g8 GeEXgKYKOMkpCE8d+cjYQZaNl6hhFztF5UxxN71qqyMXmnDgwQLL42aEp2VttWXI AYpQyHBMcSfLrwiEPvje+KS/YYtZzvtQA2rDvKrNgpo2fgKkEcSd0HtscWpo+yaK wHRyV/KpyFyDMN2yPDAUWDDwH3qp0RZhfrRJ7qj45Xrvtn4Tf0fXHJSOWMq69Fzi 28IkUTOioMsFpWtJJ2ofWfMWTGhtYg8uZSl3g11EprmbDlSVIFYiEjR0L467pBvm vp6RN0GIeEc00sMAh/60qEMP0wo1Pj0NQ6AkDiEGwXRRUFjkKXKPO5I0H7OuB5vD LxYtQVXUlmjW/MtEiCtwDHbZ0Rr7azI3GJoNfWw2LvpOeAy8Z5psuZ5Wmr1nNOIt sgMN+hfgYpvyIcEuz982nGV+gJVcDMpf/vlp50bPBIj40A/6EFU= =atvC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --eheScQNz3K90DVRs-- From nobody Tue Jan 23 03:22:51 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC6311205D3 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:22:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yT-6MVzQhssV for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:22:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8896A120724 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:22:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edwBs-0001q3-Rt; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:52:33 +0100 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:52:32 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever To: avri doria Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180123105232.GF28814@mir> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="RE3pQJLXZi4fr8Xo" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: 388a8ff653e0601f0215f26536afca72 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Unrequested Communications X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:22:50 -0000 --RE3pQJLXZi4fr8Xo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:16:21PM -0500, avri doria wrote: > Re: draft-tenoever-hrpc-unrequested-00 > =A0 >=20 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-unrequested/ >=20 > Questions: >=20 > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? >=20 No, because the doc is discontinued. Best, Niels > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the > group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. >=20 > - Who is interested in working on it? >=20 > - Are the authors willing to give up change control? >=20 > - What remains to be be done on this? >=20 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --=20 Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 =20 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 --RE3pQJLXZi4fr8Xo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAlpnE+8ACgkQDtg/OkaK yLNx0Q/9FM39ruA0QqhxPXTxl7sO5/IFJBq6JVqCeOo76CWM/B3sH+bdN1rfoUd7 uu/S/GpOn2ZZpPvy/iS3K0oGfXwg+QU/KLOMjsfUbWyfzsm1GCp59nCKeUY20WJb sT83ypOua4oUVL+Ym6PDJutzChe0+6GEdtX+3etpAeT0ruAGSz+79r+SDFv4IXQ/ tUZ4VfrQqUfRLXU9WN/S1cw6+eTwOPTeGKmy6SSKgfo0Mnm4CJXDzgqX+Q1DdyB1 +dr4HPNVF5tOxrzOM2KYxDsRWLSYKLvKcoJVR9CC6iOHWEPYDC2q0UtWWqsSofS5 RKq0gqsG+XZSv33g/mJ331dq5bPsDHeczcHmNFRE/O08ZahSieBpr8Nj0TMSlYui y5jVowpalzdW+du9JqWUUzONUgyk95Dw2ENuYpll96fY/CekjSxmM4IjdetmCIq2 MKdvPn/C+O5jC78giQxj4hcL2KDmlFx2IktfW2dyeUXZ/8Ajha3TeG/U5d6tPOUz 8w/ey7h1jH0may39hWQCBZa/BUhen2LMw9ySho7F8Vpy1kKSbqHrgS8FXyAuPBPz sMoWXXUg98qS5kEj0quBk3ucs8kAJyQwofSiKq2TBzeGMuTZuQRO8NXZgEKIj5bo vriS4zOe07262mJ4sVBKe4Y8HVTqUkzAfvw8Y9kp+4EyhlILGrc= =L6fE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --RE3pQJLXZi4fr8Xo-- From nobody Tue Jan 23 03:23:10 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D06F12025C for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:23:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T-Utrub5sH5q for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:23:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A63A91200B9 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:23:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edwIR-0004LM-H2; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:59:19 +0100 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:59:11 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever To: Eliot Lear Cc: avri@acm.org, hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180123105911.GK28814@mir> References: <757d5b93-bc4e-4dc7-aba3-0610480eab85@avris-iPad> <04ea7dbd-4a91-8ddb-5a53-fe165ee63b18@article19.org> <46ec0cab-bdf7-f24d-ea97-b13d892c86d4@acm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DheUW4aQn8WJk6WR" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: a35b83c9992104af321411b295e8f322 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] HRPC, next X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:23:09 -0000 --DheUW4aQn8WJk6WR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:53:41PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: > Hi Avri, >=20 > The IRTF has a lot of latitude over process.=C2=A0 Documents need not be > consensus documents, for instance.=C2=A0 This area is, at times, > controversial.=C2=A0 It seems to me that requiring rough consensus =E2=80= =93 or even > turning over of change control for the purposes of getting the thing > published =E2=80=93 is a high bar.=C2=A0 Also, RGs tend to ebb and flow i= n terms of > work product.=C2=A0 It could well be that we are all doing our day jobs, = or > that there are just other things going on. >=20 > This having been said, I would suggest that authors can help themselves > by bringing in new blood, especially when it comes from OUTSIDE the IETF. +1000 hrpc has been pretty good in attracting outside/new participation amo= ng document authors (Gisela, Amelia, Shivan, Alp, Olga, Sunil, etc). I hope= we can bind those new authors also to the RG by adoptiong the documents an= jointly working on them. Best, Niels >=20 > Eliot >=20 >=20 > On 15.01.18 19:35, avri doria wrote: > > Hi > > > >> I don't really understand the > >> process for HRPC documents anymore. > > The process is rather simple, and pretty much up to the group. We can do > > individual or RG I-ds, we can RFCs, we can do journal articles or blogs > > or just about any documentation we would like to do. We could do a whole > > journal if we had the content and a publisher. We could even do a book > > if that was what the RG wanted to do. > > > > Any doc that has RG support can become aIRSG named RG doc if we want it > > to and if we think it is ready for group level work. > > > > But I am still convinced that if we supported an individual document for > > publication, we could get it published.=C2=A0 > > > > I am sorry that this is de-motivating and it needs to be a work on a > > draft-irsg-hrpc named doc to be motivating.=C2=A0 But if there is suppo= rt for > > your doc becoming a RG doc, I am all for it.=C2=A0 I just have not seen= the > > support yet, despite discussions which seemed mixed to me.=C2=A0 But I = might > > have missed it. With the new year now well established, I will send out > > a message on each of the documents and check to see which, if any, have > > strong support for changing their name to draft- irsg-hrpc-... for their > > next release. > > > > I do think it would be good to see new versions of docs that had lots of > > discussion where there was a difference in points of view. > > > > What I will be looking for is an indication from the people on the list > > is of: > > > > a. whether the doc is ready to be a RG doc > > > > b. whether is contains issues that are still too controversial for the > > group consensus for inclusion at the moment. > > > > c. who is interested in working on it in the RG as a RG doc > > > > d. whether the authors are willing to give up change control and even > > willing for some other editor to volunteer to take over editing if > > things work out that way. > > > > I would note that one of the good things about continuing to work on a > > draft-yourname-hrpc... doc is that the authors keep control of the > > research and the content while it is trying to reach an annealing point > > in the RG. > > > > Thanks > > > > avri > > > > > > > > > > On 19-Dec-17 13:35, Gisela Perez de Acha wrote: > >> Hello everyone, > >> > >> I have to say I was a bit shocked as well. I don't really understand t= he > >> process for HRPC documents anymore. > >> > >> First we said we needed more traction on the list, and I do believe > >> there has been a lot of discussion. But then, it doesn't make sense to > >> discuss things endlessly in HRPC if the drafts will never become > >> research group documents. Especially if they also fit with the RG > >> charter. Being new to this list and group, I have to say I feel a bit > >> demotivated. > >> > >> That said, Mallory would make an excellent co-chair: she was the > >> technical coordinator at one of the most prominent digital civil socie= ty > >> organisations, APC, and she also has a strong human rights background.= I > >> urge decision-makers in this process to be as transparent as possible > >> and take our opinions into consideration. > >> > >> Cheers from Mexico, > >> > >> -------- > >> Gisela P=C3=A9rez de Acha > >> derechosdigitales.org > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I am a bit surprised by some of the remarks; > >>> draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines did not get any discussion on the list > >>> whereas draft-tenoever-hrpc-association has been discussed at length = in > >>> 3 hrpc sessions and gotten a lot of discussions on the list (also aft= er > >>> last session), as well as acks for RG adoption. > >>> > >>> Your reasoning that we can make drafts a work-item but not an RG draft > >>> does not make a lot of sense to me since RG drafts _are_ the work ite= ms > >>> of the RG. > >>> > >>> Where it comes to a new co-chair I think we need to look for someone = who > >>> has the time, knowledge, motivation, experience and willingness to wo= rk > >>> on this. We received notice from one volunteer who is very interested= in > >>> co-chairing and who has been a contributor on this list for a long ti= me: > >>> Mallory Knodel. So I hope we will consider her as co-chair. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Niels > >>> > >>> Niels ten Oever > >>> Head of Digital > >>> > >>> Article 19 > >>> www.article19.org > >>> > >>> PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 > >>> 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 > >>> > >>> On 12/18/2017 12:54 PM, Avri wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Been quiet, reading the comments in the various messages, listening = to > >>>> the views of people on the documents. > >>>> > >>>> As far as I can tell at this point, there is strong support > >>>> for=C2=A0draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines becoming a RG document and w= ould be > >>>> glad to see it become one. =C2=A0I think this is important, not only= because > >>>> RFC 8280 is a bit heavy, but because while 8280 does a good job of > >>>> establishing a hypothesis and of giving a set of considerations that= we > >>>> can study, the work is not yet done. =C2=A0The hypothesis needs to b= e tested, > >>>> and the considerations need to used and refined once we can determine > >>>> the degree to which they are useful and fit for purpose. =C2=A0 > >>>> > >>>> On the other documents, I think I would like to see more comment and > >>>> more support. =C2=A0I also do not think that finished work necessari= ly needs > >>>> to become a RG draft. If indeed a private doc is considered ready, we > >>>> can still request publication. =C2=A0As I have often told by others,= this is > >>>> a research group and every document does not need to become a resear= ch > >>>> document in order to prove its worth. =C2=A0So at this point, I do n= ot feel > >>>> there is a strong need for turning the 451 report into a RG draft in > >>>> order to publish it. =C2=A0If, and when, the RG believes it is ready= for > >>>> publication, I believe we can just request publication and go through > >>>> the IRTF process (but I will confirm that). > >>>> > >>>> As far as the association draft goes, while I agree that it is not q= uite > >>>> ready for RG document status, I do believe it is one that should bec= ome > >>>> a work item. =C2=A0I also think the same for the anonymity draft - o= nce I get > >>>> the impression we have many people who think it is ready. > >>>> > >>>> In terms of published work, I would also like to see the group branch > >>>> out into academic journals if possible, though I do not think the wo= rk > >>>> has yet reached the level were it is ready for most journals. > >>>> > >>>> In terms of the group and the possible need for a new co-chair, I ha= ve > >>>> spoken to Allison but we are waiting to see what Niels=E2=80=99 fina= l decision > >>>> is - he has said he was thinking of stepping down, but has not actua= lly > >>>> done so, and remains the co-chair as of now. =C2=A0If he does step d= own, > >>>> while the choice is not mine but the IRTF Chair=E2=80=99s, I would l= ike to bring > >>>> in a co-chair with the social sciences skills to bring the benefits = of > >>>> scientific rigor to the RG=E2=80=99s work. =C2=A0One of the hopes wh= en we started > >>>> this group was that it could be equally strong in Internet engineeri= ng, > >>>> human rights, and social sciences. I believe that while it is crucial > >>>> that work be useful to engineers, it is also important that it be va= lid > >>>> from a scientific point of view - the notion that there is a link > >>>> between human rights and technology is still a theory that does not = have > >>>> wide acceptance. =C2=A0If the work is to stand the test of time, I b= elieve it > >>>> needs to be acceptable to all three, engineers, human rights experts= and > >>>> social scientists. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Those are my thoughts at this point, curious to ready what thers hav= e to > >>>> say in the continuing discussion. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> Avri > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> hrpc mailing list > >>>> hrpc@irtf.org > >>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > >>>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> hrpc mailing list > >>> hrpc@irtf.org > >>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> hrpc mailing list > >> hrpc@irtf.org > >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > hrpc mailing list > > hrpc@irtf.org > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --=20 Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 =20 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 --DheUW4aQn8WJk6WR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAlpnFX4ACgkQDtg/OkaK yLPHog//c7EFvzTrnrWUBvm07ZnMY1r6KTmt4f3hl+tCVm2WbgB2uuu9D3T3wZjM soFpQtS2ix3cT2KvAx8XWORAHBV2DjAcYE6oVMiSWZxGx/BQikq7QAvJ7B6k/GFG qw8CEz6p5LxnpO1sy4LHuaPlanf1malXwqzrvCcM6etJDXuaw2C6c1OMQrDrTy+w 9+xKGGn0NJW6J09v7SKeklq0o4+Nk56B6/HOyP0XjGIu1kJ0e7yBH8FaGQBjs1Th KqNdeISvurhMNPrYA6YU5kXf9W6V7nBNpNdR5PR5fHnEjHJaWF3ui0kROvb2dcQ4 oI4KX9hcZZdN+O/UU1y0Ic7BKaSGSCyY2gZhh9yIXiq6pkrO3m86B+UYvKG9F+50 PIDdYGohK7rOB/cP06nuO2eLaTtyHHiN36pCJ9G0z6Ye2nvgsn+/tqBefxs6dLXr 2bQubzdfPGeRpWkicJZVRLw/RXL0RDpIX81Lh/Hx+/pnJ46gC/ITr3iza+GG7OJj SENbJ2wZn23jsrvjnoBBfSkkSj8SfEndMjHDlL1jBQcb/spDhLAqjtk4z4zPe47O /yZF2MwfHRqvcqeGEzAwIKkE3UGt2ydvOlNuMevuq7li+jdamLWHiYy5yzoaYVAN suiMMK7XOeAuCtg7h1mHaMOQ1xanVr0eS/G4weinqawdVCXnjYQ= =COwg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --DheUW4aQn8WJk6WR-- From nobody Tue Jan 23 03:39:09 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B18D120727 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:39:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vczDNy6vMnfi for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:39:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 820611205D3 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:39:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edwBU-0001pe-IQ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:52:08 +0100 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:52:07 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever To: Gisela Perez de Acha Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180123105207.GE28814@mir> References: <21d44e51-ed5a-08ac-ab8e-712235e3c8bc@acm.org> <127d8627-ad2a-f7d2-c385-956999f0a9fd@derechosdigitales.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tMbDGjvJuJijemkf" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <127d8627-ad2a-f7d2-c385-956999f0a9fd@derechosdigitales.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: 92147cc26b2e14e0b1010f762ef587ae Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Freedom of Association on the Internet X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:39:06 -0000 --tMbDGjvJuJijemkf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Inline for me too: On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 06:05:44PM -0600, Gisela Perez de Acha wrote: >=20 >=20 > Hi. I will respond inline > > Questions: > >=20 > > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc >=20 > I believe it is. Not because it is already done, but because it is an > interesting thing, with a promising approach, and most of all, people > are working on it. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Farrell and > Bortzmeyer have expressed in this mailing list the possibility for it to > be an RG document as well. I think it is ready too. It has been discussed extensively at several meeti= ngs and on the list and is in pretty good shape. >=20 > > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the > > group consensus for inclusion at the moment. Please be specific. >=20 > Yes, we are currently working on the argument of the "Internet as an > association" and the section regarding "spam and filter bubbles" so it > reflects what the group really thinks. Even though we are indeed working on these revision in response to the comm= ents at last meeting and on the list afterwards, I don't think this should = stop document adoption. >=20 > > - Who is interested in working on it >=20 > Me :) >=20 > Anyone else? >=20 Me > Are the authors willing to give up change control >=20 > I cannot make this decisions unilaterally, I would be fine, but let's > ask Niels as well. > Happy to do so. =20 > > - What remains to be be done on this? >=20 > Clean, edit and add all the comments. >=20 Indeed. Best, Niels >=20 > Cheers >=20 >=20 > Gisela > >=20 > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > hrpc mailing list > > hrpc@irtf.org > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --=20 Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 =20 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 --tMbDGjvJuJijemkf Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAlpnE9cACgkQDtg/OkaK yLNstg//d5hzW8IpAB3ous7YADLKseTCVqcgb/4BY1+zr5SF31rFTv76I0d4UBeh yH7EzkV+qUJTHDvh4BU38yA3ijz1qdiKapT5UoPGl6H4FNnHy/QwpmTGJMLXAcSR UTs6npba8QFfc8frvJxfBQ/zeVya9ooPeZjXuFHOkrBBQbz8cxkF50oMCFa3mibk jP0YeFPmAml+BNXAleuyXzvlHDJslfBIGFC/b2CM98K+6O72m7xyiJZsOavfLIo+ JvLi6vbX1q24TFvpzZaIOrHbxMoe9GFz7+usJLc/EMUOEKXlxMCg93QxNpUzRSt4 Wre3Xp3hZq3gu0ge3cyL6eRcpEqrtC4RcjjnRwwFlLzZHGPVmQ6Pn88qDDY+Qgoh 4A2JMvwUzHHJKvZow8yQnucVYjfy49hGXM8/rSNe7g8ltgDePIfPZpjmaUOCbMdr f7VTttW9kwqxVPVj4gqgqzOKJTQs07bSZ+Wx3REDfDY6A4ehczJp9TINNJ0EaDUy XK2app2g/zIVl/dxe5gQEkH/i3Pb59vEcF1u3MgTIpeXYorETel5oZ7UqRFLAIZy mZc9ViOGzi9tmNA/Oa3nrUY9rlGoQtF6RAEr+7TMSJKA3QD6QGgSUEJIsddR2ARG xcph6x4PHR/pJ5j0wchK8xMPrcWB8DQeWj/zXZOB1Wkac7gjrAE= =/HrT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tMbDGjvJuJijemkf-- From nobody Tue Jan 23 03:39:16 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6684B1205D3 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:39:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GoIOJ0T1UZIE for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:39:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2550A120724 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:39:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edwFO-0003Of-H6; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:56:10 +0100 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:56:09 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever To: avri doria Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180123105609.GI28814@mir> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YZVh52eu0Ophig4D" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: 4a4e1dd80dce9ac0d9378b25a0c059e8 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] On the Politics of Standards X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "niels@article19.org" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:39:08 -0000 --YZVh52eu0Ophig4D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:16:05PM -0500, avri doria wrote: > Re: draft-tenoever-hrpc-political-02 > =A0 >=20 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-political/ >=20 > Questions: >=20 > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? > I think so, especially because it consists of the mapping of different posi= tions in the RG during the development of RFC8280 =20 > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the > group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. >=20 I think we would have all opinions covered and it is in-line with current p= osition (and the tech plenary of two meetings ago). So I think it is. > - Who is interested in working on it? >=20 Me. > - Are the authors willing to give up change control? >=20 Yes > - What remains to be be done on this? >=20 More clean up and streamlining. See where we go with economic analysis. Best, Niels > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --=20 Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 =20 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 --YZVh52eu0Ophig4D Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAlpnFMkACgkQDtg/OkaK yLONKw/9FLrw804x9p98jsQg8ed7NQLtIiaaD9h4LEL9apoQxWn1wz+M+NW04i/S Jyrf3qTQ48re0K/69eXp32l+rWXAckELKDZAawvZRdJOBAJU1OuM/Rfy0zZcJEiA EHh+N3bcraa0Cn8YBm3JoCgt9ooPk6sE9Ws+EY2oceEkBC0jZUEPEiHBKKHqzk4q ugZ4bgbvSLnmGnCfAup8bfeaLWSNVMd9guYiUJjXgnX/bCGdI+vcuPbZVSm/C1SN gocgpqGzQ1gQQlQPqHcHRAocOxXXzgUPnmmIvEt3im4s3cxh+f1tSn+FrOVm25wt h27ihhp96EwO2SNdVAmIe951HlOI4YoErPzlZyg+kzg/RdEagimusAjo+nXMbiX1 wsybvAurRB3M8ihH5cK1QqpuNTMy/cbpRKcqOTq9MowFweQH3ndukBMjrXqI8RQN WJZ0uPfwjeVdr6sM2cYgw6n2TjyQKjP+y/8cSSrDMcgpijYminjSJEJWlRZjBlfH 5/M3qakZ3R+cQY813lvqlO1zAKT2ynrdhKWDSJ6MednPve3BK2rrAHzBFk/Oss12 m+i18YZo4ucaSqk11J7WpevmsRFMkcWf1SkMR6IuYH+tms7FRWskumDyEJ5U4iVq E6KXg0g72J1EbmvnwkJA4/9gX/0XJ7WV2SgDEix9aCJA1k/v5U0= =xNF0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --YZVh52eu0Ophig4D-- From nobody Tue Jan 23 03:54:25 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BD591241F3 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:54:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0YJn6D9gVkSz for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:54:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CDF91205D3 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:54:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edx5h-0003YV-6a for hrpc@irtf.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:50:13 +0100 To: "hrpc@irtf.org" From: Niels ten Oever Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:50:12 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-As-Hash: f1842a279235a42f6aa2a2a81130733515c5a4ec X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: 7d5496156303beb808e20731fc6c473e Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] FYI - change of address X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:54:24 -0000 Hi all, Because of organizational transitions I will in the future email from this mail-address to the list. This is also the mail-address for the mailing-list admin. Best, Niels From nobody Tue Jan 23 03:55:11 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28641241FC for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:55:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26IgugwDCZuP for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:55:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F292B1205D3 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:55:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edwCc-00025D-IN; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:53:18 +0100 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:53:17 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever To: avri doria Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180123105317.GG28814@mir> References: <3b36b025-d6b5-6abb-323a-dbd6c61ba914@acm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xs+9IvWevLaxKUtW" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3b36b025-d6b5-6abb-323a-dbd6c61ba914@acm.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: 4868b52b90b9144be14ceb212c82ef23 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Anonymity, Human Rights and Internet Protocols X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:55:09 -0000 --xs+9IvWevLaxKUtW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This document is the work of Stephane, but am more than happy to support. I= also think it is a really important topic and I am more than happy to supp= ort. Best, Niels On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:15:12PM -0500, avri doria wrote: > Re:=A0 draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity-01 > >=20 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity/ >=20 > Questions: >=20 > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? >=20 > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the > group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. >=20 > - Who is interested in working on it? >=20 > - Are the authors willing to give up change control? >=20 > - What remains to be be done on this? >=20 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --=20 Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 =20 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 --xs+9IvWevLaxKUtW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAlpnFB0ACgkQDtg/OkaK yLMp9Q/+Ik0fklTcl3Gq8lMMKthja59wuYytUhToBA6XOpHaAmk6baX7ji1hJKe7 WXG6JMrsRCkuFhQZlRdNN27bldRC/x9Qngb2dVxe1HiV8qb6OMNmU/TTIQ3W6dZ4 eKFMNfhh95MoPIIINPb8rAy4decALNO/rtsj8YWqCzqY98BwEMKu+5UovpP+xqOR 34akFB7G/jZSsC6Z5yutqEbho6zrOpyCz0IMQdGZh+211I6t2zwhYV9yAncesAA3 +Kw/3OKr4tL6mRrL2BfWDwxczdjVh9KEFEONrYd1eQiRihDr3/GgNa5++w5hGpR0 brJ2YSKDEsymje6uoEBfjlBg+PM7s1LJsnkoAeYr6K4N/W7qKkuwORavr1Q+t1wP R+9960bEB1zqRirCaJJBqP2Lf5olpUvX8Gxy7ekYkXOfgMx/EIV5uVQt08kqUlJi wR1k36aC5Aj6O/Zn2p7UcDTPHEpwFH+BXxy8NuePBuuR+/xhCNju+PFX1Mpx2JoU YqJtCuO6lszvOVurLRtPXyJ4SQLBiykSWUDSqYzR5jb5VoovQtEqdv/l4FS8M2fm RMuy8oINcciNJMvRtdah3GRAA33ATIEZaIMmLUZBpqqizOe7MDdLOR2WW7vckLgH gbTMF4Hl+nMflJJn6d1O8La7QFxFd9hOoJJrhyi1mV1Lx05fVK0= =O7Ig -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xs+9IvWevLaxKUtW-- From nobody Tue Jan 23 04:19:39 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 185E612421A for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 04:19:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EaUzXwkeMa_J for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 04:19:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 007C71241F8 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 04:19:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edxY6-0004LE-CK for hrpc@irtf.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:19:34 +0100 To: hrpc@irtf.org References: From: Amelia Andersdotter Organization: ARTICLE19 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:19:33 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: c09395f469c52153b963e4ff2d10f427 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] On the Politics of Standards X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:19:38 -0000 Inline responses: On 2018-01-16 18:16, avri doria wrote: > Re: draft-tenoever-hrpc-political-02 > =C2=A0 > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-political/ > > Questions: > > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? No. > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the > group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. With the current research question, the conclusion seems foregone and also is, by itself, controversial. > - Who is interested in working on it? Me. > - Are the authors willing to give up change control? > > - What remains to be be done on this? Quite much, yes. best regards, Amelia > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --=20 Amelia Andersdotter Technical Consultant, Digital Programme ARTICLE19 www.article19.org PGP: 3D5D B6CA B852 B988 055A 6A6F FEF1 C294 B4E8 0B55 From nobody Tue Jan 23 09:54:28 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE8A12762F for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:54:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tamu-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6SKZ4GzKHNc4 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:54:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-io0-x229.google.com (mail-io0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B84CC1275AB for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:54:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io0-x229.google.com with SMTP id 25so1829798ioj.9 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:54:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tamu-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=crNslq3+/fv+jhUMMHYMWtUGCojV1aeWC8NUQNSanyc=; b=Tt2NUlLImTS881hao0fE3yVwt90D2i2opB4+YDIK4qKIx0sR9QRGms1t2lzKooG8pE bDiGe2BDG2dIBv6HKA3LYVqsP7tRxV60JSYe+mlkQwzxwjy57R2Oe0LNvK7aDXNj30xQ g2KfWyBchpB/mfodIO4JlPlx0xKta+nS9iU7HL7BquQJbEFAsh8LWXNaIXvLOqZ+bhlh UUaQv+saJKVcNHAY/DhupuuAubIrKLMG/1QS4zxxdwOd9Vr2Zgcf+cGZ7g/LuwAbyGFP amJ/PbL15dMBmHOJtT5I4Vsh9PGcTcefVBiiNNrubemDrHC203IWBV1UPaizwmvQ3imI Whjg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=crNslq3+/fv+jhUMMHYMWtUGCojV1aeWC8NUQNSanyc=; b=LDi099YQaJfAhDz3h7jG1EfKnhtGZCHpvojYfIEdFwiV2nA8ZL2/Ex8T/pF6ZD1w6q /BRq9JH3PiY/IzN/uEdCyQ0s4XgV3UGm/tMGIyF4X6d7/qwcx9dtB8TpAvREMOi+SHUb WRzmAu70B8C9BO6BxfWMRAyVwO/HA/xDQ1UrRifXXeu4jQ67Npox3RxOvzFqtyc5/dYc VacGE+P/Mcnq9gwOkEOPMJzoP+Jgyq0NHaa2fLoFte0ir7xMz0ToN1JN0JULXXlTdpBD jeoLmz5zRadT1WJsn5kaPcs87Sj/tIWT74AX+xD/RppkoKlPPd/E92YIX1RwEBQDXe3a RQHQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytc8bpFW9iMhiGKbAkGAlmOiu2TVcRbGbEpW241Q0CLlPsmOULHr NHU8TR15wotXtVKENY+BxuwPS+JD3w4DoHsH6zvd/w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224852oKymH7lSziTQ0F6slmCxn3Pq4aRTA8bRBWHSBtM8DQh8YpmxRI4iENBNp781lwxzWPqG7miSDMV+rtz2w= X-Received: by 10.107.31.65 with SMTP id f62mr4876917iof.57.1516730060920; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:54:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.9.167 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:54:19 -0800 (PST) From: Sandra Braman Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:54:19 -0600 Message-ID: To: hrpc@irtf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140e8ca809c850563753c86" Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] re process X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:54:27 -0000 --001a1140e8ca809c850563753c86 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Thanks, Avri, for the additional information re process. From what you say here, it looks as if the finger on the button then moves to the chair of the group from the author or authors of the document as there is always an open question regarding when a consensus has actually been achieved, among whom that consensus must be achieved, and about what the consensus has been achieved. Your example from the recent conversation was useful as well. Sandra ----------------------------- > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: avri doria > To: hrpc@irtf.org > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 19:42:53 -0500 > Subject: Re: [hrpc] hrpc Digest, Vol 34, Issue 10 > Hi, > > It becomes the rough consensus of the group that drives the doc. > Certainly the original author can remain the editor, but equally someone > else can be, and sometimes is, picked if necessary. Note, the original > author is a member of the group with the same ability to argue for a > point of view even if the stop being the editor. > > In terms of accepting a doc as RG doc, that is something I think belongs > to the RG as a rough consensus decision in this group. So the chair or > co-chairs decide if they think there is consensus, and then test it with > the group. If they get rebuffed for a wrong call, then the discussion > continues until there is a rough consensus call that survives the > opinion of the group. > > For example, I had made a call that only one doc was right for RG > status, but got a certain amount of rebuff, waited a bit to see what > other opinions came in and then decided to ask more questions to see > where I went wrong. > > Again the group could have been designed differently, but we decided at > the beginning to follow IETF guidelines on such things for the most part. > > thanks > > avri > > > On 16-Jan-18 14:08, Sandra Braman wrote: > > Newbie question: When an author or authors give up change control, > > what happens? Who can make changes at that point, how is the > > discussion channeled if anyone can make changes at that point, and who > > is still in control in the sense of being able to "push the button" to > > change the status of the document? What has been the history of this > > transition point with other hrpc texts? > > > > Thanks -- > > > > Sandra Braman > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:52 PM, > > wrote: > > > > Send hrpc mailing list submissions to > > hrpc@irtf.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > hrpc-request@irtf.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > hrpc-owner@irtf.org --001a1140e8ca809c850563753c86 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks, Avri, for the additional information re process. F= rom what you say here, it looks as if the finger on the button then moves t= o the chair of the group from the author or authors of the document as ther= e is always an open question regarding when a consensus has actually been a= chieved, among whom that consensus must be achieved, and about what the con= sensus has been achieved. Your example from the recent conversation was use= ful as well.

Sandra

-----------------------------


---------- Forwar= ded message ----------
From:=C2=A0avri doria <avri@acm.org>
To:=C2=A0= hrpc@irtf.org
Cc:=C2=A0
Bcc:=C2=A0
Date:=C2=A0Tue, 16 Jan 2018= 19:42:53 -0500
Subject:=C2=A0Re: [hrpc] hrpc Digest, Vol 34, Issue 10Hi,

It becomes the rough consensus of the group that drives the doc.=C2=A0
Certainly the original author can remain the editor, but equally someone else can be, and sometimes is, picked if necessary. Note, the original
author is a member of the group with the same ability to argue for a
point of view even if the stop being the editor.

In terms of accepting a doc as RG doc, that is something I think belongs to the RG as a rough consensus decision in this group. So the chair or
co-chairs decide if they think there is consensus, and then test it with the group.=C2=A0 If they get rebuffed for a wrong call, then the discussion=
continues until there is a rough consensus call that survives the
opinion of the group. =C2=A0

For example, I had made a call that only one doc was right for RG
status, but got a certain amount of rebuff, waited a bit to see what
other opinions came in and then decided to ask more questions to see
where I went wrong.

Again the group could have been designed differently, but we decided at
the beginning to follow IETF guidelines on such things for the most part.
thanks

avri


On 16-Jan-18 14:08, Sandra Braman wrote:
> Newbie question:=C2=A0 When an author or authors give up change contro= l,
> what happens?=C2=A0 Who can make changes at that point, how is the
> discussion channeled if anyone can make changes at that point, and who=
> is still in control in the sense of being able to "push the butto= n" to
> change the status of the document? What has been the history of this > transition point with other hrpc texts?
>
> Thanks --
>
> Sandra Braman
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:52 PM, <hrpc-request@irtf.org
> <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.= org>> wrote:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Send hrpc mailing list submissions to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 hrpc@irtf.org <mailto:hrp= c@irtf.org>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,= visit
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https:= //www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://www.irtf.org/mailman/<= wbr>listinfo/hrpc>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0or, via email, send a message with subject or body = 'help' to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 hrpc-request@irtf.org <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0You can reach the person managing the list at
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 hrpc-owner@irtf.org <mailto:hrpc-owner@irtf.org>
--001a1140e8ca809c850563753c86-- From nobody Tue Jan 23 14:59:02 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 191E212D87A for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:59:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=geMPVl3W; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=gHaEx5ak Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E_eNBIokC7QL for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:58:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFB6312D876 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:58:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com (ADSL-TPLUS-82-165.telecomplus.net [196.27.82.165]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0NMwYvF018235 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:58:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1516748326; x=1516834726; bh=9/4weq0jiXr/bBwS2S18iDqwh4RAVzhTPNY/pCvQvd0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=geMPVl3WCdwOtP3/HIGH8Lh6sogl7XeSrYWa39pPZH1StTTCKyH0rtwD+c69HwP6W YO0r19LtkTUIq1TcOC0BNm+uH1J2hPX6Ng9nrEPy8XNrCKj/fyuTFKtQqx32qpvDEd QIrho3cfBMqf9OA3eltlMGbWPkvJgoKOvp499+Qg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1516748326; x=1516834726; i=@elandsys.com; bh=9/4weq0jiXr/bBwS2S18iDqwh4RAVzhTPNY/pCvQvd0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=gHaEx5akPfa/2lV4WhEt15TqNg7wRkRfJ726b8ooo+fKuu2/GpwgXSveMHMaQP6YH JecaROeEd6wLU8+nj0L23y1TLVf2hm9qCBO7Lc8oA2qIFwGWxgm9/T6kEsIrZB6z/5 wqHEi2+S/N/u3bdqt62PmzPz2TBXXDmb1hpPQCxE= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20180123134445.13135aa0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:19:50 -0800 To: Niels ten Oever , hrpc@irtf.org From: S Moonesamy Cc: Gisela Perez de Acha In-Reply-To: <20180123092518.GB913@mir> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20180108132649.114ec2e0@elandnews.com> <20180123092518.GB913@mir> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Comments on draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 22:59:00 -0000 Hi Niels, At 01:25 AM 23-01-2018, Niels ten Oever wrote: >On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 03:24:15PM -0800, S Moonesamy wrote: >Why? The right to freedom of association is a human rights. If the >Internet architecture could be understood as an assembly, it should >also be protected as such. I'll leave it to the Research Group to see what it wants to do about this. >I think there are many more examples, take for instance: > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA The examples are about proposed laws in the United States. Are there non-US examples? >I am not sure what this has to do with 'fake news'. We're just >discussing the distribution of content, not the quality of it. It is like saying that: we are only interested in the distribution; we are not interested if the quality is "bad". It is easier to "block" the distribution if the quality is beyond a permissible limit. >Mailinglists are the topic is quite a few RFCs, and therefore within >the purview of this doc. Take for instance RFC6783. Is the document about RFCs or protocols? >Conform RFCRFC3935. I didn't notice that the term was used in that RFC. Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Tue Jan 23 15:21:33 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0E8E12D889 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:21:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aehbem4W7Lai for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:21:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ot0-x229.google.com (mail-ot0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 265AD12D876 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:21:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ot0-x229.google.com with SMTP id s3so2000820otc.9 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:21:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=MOyQtAmqg7Mb02OrQlLMDkuRb7Ely+IO1ufSBY/TFB4=; b=WxG8h6LzOTXD50dXW/oAmeYiGbjVQHkuaXba0Vi/PIgkF0XR+LfVXTzPbzup9z9zbO jnRJt1Lgunj/kw6U2SZ9nGS4P3CmcxIyWFInnRAcufli0HGM3SmtVegtkMNmGmAttsIE d13S/x/haMqeQLcc4tpsgEA076U9Iyd6poLwbtjmklX3nSXwdt1kekGAyYv22FAtE9X5 sx2zMITIarK6DDyIYfm1u6gjNkjnavF7sZf+z+OiE4pTWpqukoU8cMwH14udX+B/GPTn aYEDJ0pc5Sa25hC6d+PjpZSHc7K8dJvj42Q3jJzUCTjsiG5noIwnxgmLUMY4nfAnm/1D wrKA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=MOyQtAmqg7Mb02OrQlLMDkuRb7Ely+IO1ufSBY/TFB4=; b=feBFiLbX4qYDSqqtrrWyp+VxPZINPgN6M8NSoDOkkZF2/bJdES01B8QENtT1sMlsbc LCswXycjl0M1nEpm80+7CxlQCqHcHmHc5lpXDI1uYd0c1uImImZC+ZGlOqop1MA5sCKr wRsoEOrQ3VweQzKPoQxWINKxqfCLSKxqghWQgGQx6QWBJbhZoSK6cKPt0YFVwRHTiURz gefWD7viYcqSmbl+ElvJhSNcgm0wvMOPnqnxiysfwYgSAont+VfRalQu6e07cFkQmGxp uWk/E4UBkmbDwMTf5oL/Ag48bTH0d4UB4QPHgabV+StBlZhoAvTx50aJraPYKlN7I5LR lKPQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcrNbxVcGV+8GmZ0kPhdb0IcQi/dGCigp5P3n8YiSN4so9TzoYd Xng36w8mhByrt2/Db4s7qhs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225Ax8jiZ6WqtXmqc+GcIcV8+HqfckOAN/U2/t7qWbZf4fTnsq23KIAD4UdovQ1Zhx3p9SZBuA== X-Received: by 10.157.37.74 with SMTP id j10mr7898607otd.184.1516749689417; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:21:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.20] (ip184-189-218-77.sb.sd.cox.net. [184.189.218.77]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b83sm1576217oia.18.2018.01.23.15.21.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:21:28 -0800 (PST) From: Fred Baker Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_85CDE305-65E6-437E-9051-7DED0D88B413"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:21:25 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20180123092518.GB913@mir> Cc: S Moonesamy , hrpc@irtf.org, Gisela Perez de Acha To: Niels ten Oever References: <6.2.5.6.2.20180108132649.114ec2e0@elandnews.com> <20180123092518.GB913@mir> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Comments on draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 23:21:32 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_85CDE305-65E6-437E-9051-7DED0D88B413 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > On Jan 23, 2018, at 1:25 AM, Niels ten Oever = wrote: >=20 >> I have some comments on draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02. = According to >> the Research Group Charter, one of its objectives is to "expose the = relation >> between protocols and human rights". The research questions (Section = 3) are >> about internet architecture and whether the internet is an assembly = or >> association. That seems like stretching that objective. >=20 > Why? The right to freedom of association is a human rights. If the = Internet architecture could be understood as an assembly, it should also = be protected as such. I'm not sure why the Internet Architecture would be viewed as an = assembly of anything that has "human" rights. Fill me in? The Internet Architecture is a communication medium among a number of = systems. Some of those systems are used by people some of the time. Most = of them offer a service, and that service might not be to people. For = example, DNS offers the service of translating names to addresses. IOT = is a collection of sensors, actuators, and other things, which might for = example be part of an electrical utility. I might hope that an IOT = device periodically has a name translation time out and perform a DNS = lookup to refresh its memory. In that context, there is essentially = never a human in the loop - one has machines that are performing a = service performing it for other machines that are part of a service. One = could argue that the *utility* offers a service to its customers, some = of which are people, and the employees of the utility are people, but to = argue from that that the combination forms an assembly is a Really Big = Stretch. In addition, what I just described is at the highest layer, the = application layer. The layers below that - transport, comprising UDP, = TCP, QUIC, etc, the network layer, the link layer, and the physical = connectivity - NEVER have people in them, and are not services to = people. They are services to the applications in question. So I really seriously can't make sense of the jump from a service = architecture for communications among systems to anything that might be = named "Human". Humans are users of some parts of the system some of the = time, but as a whole the system is not human. --Apple-Mail=_85CDE305-65E6-437E-9051-7DED0D88B413 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEctjlJjQmVrp9uMq7EhdRnd2GP+AFAlpnw3UACgkQEhdRnd2G P+AwSBAAlvCPzQd8w0Kv50Ngm3AC3wYjkRjrbRFP1YCkqVEEqBx0FP7Mxl76FKLq MvNTvarz5lpD5esPWkYIjzk4X1+Ndbzxj+gTkF1TMeZPmiMuKPK8DisZghZfZdZC 2NGuHSBHhbGpIt0/2HPT/Kz7Ho62j1uUa7KqLaNiVQYjYB770ef99K61rZYpGTjS ekTR6TCTh1sG7rabs+cMwDGFOOvpOL6nx1u3+o0951tzUaaW0Vv8Fl93ccF4Rtgb Ogtun1Cnx5BM6xkscBma0Mc0HaRWOVEtLWNcoxnph/OOaRDDRbuf/cttqqa3rz4P opRcTW1w5RjhUEMfEcICNovUGH5HYOLVTbv9qzNbEDO2jXjo4UBYpfjUyNJDHCDT 3ukwjsQ349nWGT+dhfxGAR6SOeMoPo5NCXsGBg0V0LqSIfwYEFlK36QsqqzXFsRs rEBerB1egiF18FqijPy7vdmYsQ1QY473gGgxDDNOuHxOgTWX4CzcSrQdV+184wek jfVhJgpBXim6qp1fXoueQ5OeKP5O3mSBvbO1dyUwugd3xvfBblV9mN1iAA7xg9gt YsFYDEb5xHnrOYY8MHrVo5di3DP8eCBbwZFV7ObL1bivzVQ9ei2a8qVfbmsFqx0A 8bdn5KLrc15B7txqnfOwS27dodg/CoKxNXdNioXJEYYLIuqeRw8= =ASzO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_85CDE305-65E6-437E-9051-7DED0D88B413-- From nobody Tue Jan 23 16:02:01 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 192B112D88A for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:02:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nomountain-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ipcoGLgD_ECD for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:01:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf0-x235.google.com (mail-pf0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 408E812D811 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:01:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-x235.google.com with SMTP id e76so1622679pfk.1 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:01:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nomountain-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=rQnHGdJDC0pcPE662frUIGmgfwRrV6okOlUQaWsW1Zw=; b=iz4fLjphq6FE+PMFhkxypWWqEvzI2mdc+toHXA3a0wPhVlk5th6d2pZnwhy7Ps1lsb 0BLuJ8riuFJkjsbEZHySzo78GfMjJQ3CYComHzbdDlGK+sQ0D00+AqRm01L7sH/Am2AQ fZqMgJ8ZexRYUuu6d4uqyBRLtt8vkcVQCNOW1BtOyUZxvltQTfFreUTEuMhqesD6HoOA SCjingJeFaZAu6k+7qoMebx+K+U3vgOxE1VSDIH/opEcIFQSIRWuruHjpNok4S+ObAAI WWrxAslYKDH1FRzZfmLamWGxXPiTs2owrBhUEJ1ATh3Spf5gafUo010BNUkJCNygjhBs eDLQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=rQnHGdJDC0pcPE662frUIGmgfwRrV6okOlUQaWsW1Zw=; b=ZDZs/40gUryO6Hjg9p90z7brtaNsDqcoM/Nt/jHcaQ22gbNc3H5+dKW78Pyaj3BvrU NhXJ7+TqgNIy69BeRTuo4U3vi6Hh1g2zs2CNrx1gDVBbWG/vNTaiK/iWZG1mQ9Gp5xYT u1u800d9E761iIsedUgEZszj1B5PRBP6YJFZhc4L9pm4N81qWEkGFvt2og6bqiLl733e nWC8o5hPD8FHlHM2iLLeyO/4gysMmyeyJEUoqq5AJVsjvluWmJHWkv+54zcPJtL66q08 KWuEq5qKKgruUvYVh8q00g6IzdqZwOa42pKFBV+MN7bYhf068Qk9lWTeUycXq20tNlVG 3ntg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytc4L2vXCrVVWzkzcKhR9GU3ACyVn3atCAKP5kT6fQOUVkm42951 GhrVOXDBrzLg5pjcqQS0MAsYKqc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224nVvQbE8jU8TOi1kANdnjIce1uQxoNhwu8a1nW0cyLJMBbq7Odz0WOp6xYjQWBR7K2WtT29g== X-Received: by 10.101.85.69 with SMTP id t5mr9726447pgr.123.1516752117479; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:01:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from aspen.local (63-140-68-28-radius.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [63.140.68.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r24sm6335695pfg.51.2018.01.23.16.01.56 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:01:56 -0800 (PST) To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <21d44e51-ed5a-08ac-ab8e-712235e3c8bc@acm.org> <127d8627-ad2a-f7d2-c385-956999f0a9fd@derechosdigitales.org> <20180123105207.GE28814@mir> From: Melinda Shore Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:01:54 -0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180123105207.GE28814@mir> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="KwhUv6LJlogqUaYn9Z8jdW6I2kBkiCzbB" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Freedom of Association on the Internet X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 00:02:00 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --KwhUv6LJlogqUaYn9Z8jdW6I2kBkiCzbB Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="howLkIgDQaEtHBsn0cvv4TRGNNhA6oBuY"; protected-headers="v1" From: Melinda Shore To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Freedom of Association on the Internet References: <21d44e51-ed5a-08ac-ab8e-712235e3c8bc@acm.org> <127d8627-ad2a-f7d2-c385-956999f0a9fd@derechosdigitales.org> <20180123105207.GE28814@mir> In-Reply-To: <20180123105207.GE28814@mir> --howLkIgDQaEtHBsn0cvv4TRGNNhA6oBuY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 1/23/18 1:52 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote: > I think it is ready too. It has been discussed extensively at several > meetings and on the list and is in pretty good shape. Well ... Overall I think the document is reasonable except for section 7, which is sufficiently incorrect that I don't think document can be adopted as-is. It is absolutely true that the internet enables association, that association is a human right, and that it must be protected. It does not follow at all that network have association rights which must be protected. I really don't know how many times techies have to repeat this before it's reflected in the document. I think it's correct and appropriate to talk about ways in which disruptions to connectivity can affect the freedom to associate but I am completely unclear why that means that a given network has a right to expect transport from another network. I think there needs to be a distinction between the tools that are used to enable rights and the rights themselves, and that's not reflected in the document as it currently stands. (or as we might say, "this is a layer violation"). So basically I think it would be helpful if sections 6.4 and 7 were replaced with a discussion of ways in which network disruptions can interfere with the right to freely associate. Melinda --=20 Software longa, hardware brevis PGP fingerprint: 795A 714B CD08 F996 AEFE AB36 FE18 57E9 6B9D A293 --howLkIgDQaEtHBsn0cvv4TRGNNhA6oBuY-- --KwhUv6LJlogqUaYn9Z8jdW6I2kBkiCzbB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJRBAEBCgA7FiEEOwSIcj4Q6xsnay8FuIZGkzoegS4FAlpnzPIdHG1lbGluZGEu c2hvcmVAbm9tb3VudGFpbi5uZXQACgkQuIZGkzoegS7bqRAAw+Y3PMViF7zN23TW qb1KHtAY/EKhWjhhP06sUhGipyVczZYqvzj1IcJmkPP4P5pmuel9SPGUP9SvcIWK /5836P3MWIs0B/nmPbFDm+LUmr1jrst6OtQVrMpCwXARS7HgGAtXzwqP60FzpeQb FDNO8YspB2VZdY6bxBY/cmvohsxrRaYYTj8Utg7joWCMEI0BkvKD0wpSwTV0EXAY JeCzjWlDSu8JE/iT5VLL7yW7mISNJPoqV7s/FKB00IQJSkwV3vqkVcgGzAN3jAkR Icy1wkygQxpdvgBa4dmDNz1zP3/enrxceqyrt71zQfGPXYlVu0QnhkP1ykTwuTPA 8P/8qgO/+aecaWvgOVvnv6ETO5MwpTCL4a1Iax9fGfFtLBuxQHWwJJcl/gFhRa2k xAMegfUyqlnfqtJdU46BGXau3z01zR/elDTkplbC5Qc/Jl/8NgPicEWxa0oOlanD SUyMlo8r8aE/RCdOnk4Y/L0WdUnObwHYK7+mKpAM8bFcYQbrBi519a8g+9fXKhlW S3izmygnELbejoFetxjpLPOmLmST97XVXnN7cwDLDqkm4xAZxUW/aw84PEjQNXlT xhZvFLMtc/Y34J72YOYCIuIHwQUZlVkOgXooZfW/ueOZ4nOVG6fyLEIBJZWbnv+f zQcm4RwlxbI4cnizQoASQcdfzzA= =gYOA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --KwhUv6LJlogqUaYn9Z8jdW6I2kBkiCzbB-- From nobody Wed Jan 24 02:42:16 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E952B12DA17 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 02:42:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id po9bnGywm3ES for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 02:42:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77DDB12D96D for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 02:42:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eeIVJ-00054D-Qz; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:42:06 +0100 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:42:03 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever To: S Moonesamy Cc: hrpc@irtf.org, Gisela Perez de Acha Message-ID: <20180124104203.GA4995@mir> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20180108132649.114ec2e0@elandnews.com> <20180123092518.GB913@mir> <6.2.5.6.2.20180123134445.13135aa0@elandnews.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="lrZ03NoBR/3+SXJZ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20180123134445.13135aa0@elandnews.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: b5e1a7a6a0a97f953de832680fded840 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Comments on draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:42:15 -0000 --lrZ03NoBR/3+SXJZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 02:19:50PM -0800, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Niels, > At 01:25 AM 23-01-2018, Niels ten Oever wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 03:24:15PM -0800, S Moonesamy wrote: > > Why? The right to freedom of association is a human rights. If the > > Internet architecture could be understood as an assembly, it should also > > be protected as such. >=20 > I'll leave it to the Research Group to see what it wants to do about this. >=20 > > I think there are many more examples, take for instance: > >=20 > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA >=20 > The examples are about proposed laws in the United States. Are there non= -US > examples? >=20 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_India > > I am not sure what this has to do with 'fake news'. We're just > > discussing the distribution of content, not the quality of it. >=20 > It is like saying that: we are only interested in the distribution; we are > not interested if the quality is "bad". It is easier to "block" the > distribution if the quality is beyond a permissible limit. >=20 Maybe a useful discussion to have, but not within the IETF. It's outside of= its mandate and expertise. > > Mailinglists are the topic is quite a few RFCs, and therefore within the > > purview of this doc. Take for instance RFC6783. >=20 > Is the document about RFCs or protocols? > Internet architecture. So that includes documents influencing and describin= g the architecture, which includes protocols and RFCs. Best, Niels =20 > > Conform RFCRFC3935. >=20 > I didn't notice that the term was used in that RFC. >=20 > Regards, > S. Moonesamy >=20 --=20 Niels ten Oever Researcher and PhD Candidate Datactive Research Group University of Amsterdam PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 =20 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 --lrZ03NoBR/3+SXJZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAlpoYvsACgkQDtg/OkaK yLOCdQ//afqQYVxVozeG14eeheIhImF3Aq7mbirRf2S9l/n45+oytGvP9bkUwqow GnojTEr2bVXdbFebnn/sUd+O6WHlI+V/i26XNRcQ5fCOkVxSp5ENnheUdSQu4nf0 DQOIlN+0AoLGF54cyx+91UanwVei78Zq9vV84ThAFiKFu/ak6KYg+asSvYfhziDe zqRC79KMNZzIQDVow48Yg/rjMm3x8odfu+fiEfP2qSC04RI/oCuqgc/0bGpnmlc4 ZLuUfyA74BSJm2ioM56Cv/IOk7Bdp7Ac2Hvp26B1htJ1XjtUP7hTbKcVtIFv1O8P 63JWqizyyw8BC9L/C6q2y+LG2ukP4ffYnRA+XtkQzQFw26o4PDfmEsb9EX06HtzB Z3dl+FFBnbBz9sc0J11Huw/Fin7Jx/Hodq+Tv768T5QHB9dRHydampqD1k6T4kZ7 eDVX7WaHZ7ZoP/N9Yy6nM8tiQBYA1LhG3g1QUJ1hwjjHUTolRcWvCknzbw7I3IaM mqHfoCwvSQy6uZvn8AgTEkVfHJURguoRu+Kj7i9tiDVMAfSBXCiiqz2u5JP0LkJI pGf88R+g0kbfAzaGc/tyy/N/xeEd6XS11gtaF8kpDQIXoTRLtfg58unBe26aUacE rJ5cF7uFajNzLeXBmFQsoMHPpIDb278wCGAeX36x2I+gBRcu5HU= =nZNN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --lrZ03NoBR/3+SXJZ-- From nobody Wed Jan 24 02:53:22 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0CD712DA1D for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 02:53:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2rJ5d7uy3juP for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 02:53:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E91C212D96D for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 02:53:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eeIg7-0007QG-IY; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:53:16 +0100 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:53:14 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180124105314.GD4995@mir> References: <20180118094058.xf6amdl3saumvrjr@sources.org> <20180123093625.GF913@mir> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="SO98HVl1bnMOfKZd" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180123093625.GF913@mir> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: 98cd051f671ee36aeaf0d6c34a549736 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] About draft-harkins-tls-dragonfly X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:53:20 -0000 --SO98HVl1bnMOfKZd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Unfortunately Dan informed me he will only make changes suggested by editor= and IANA. Best, Niels On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:36:25AM +0100, Niels ten Oever wrote: > I knew Dan put this in a while ago, but I was not aware he kept it in! >=20 > Will send him an e-mail to ask whether he would accept some alternative l= anguage. >=20 > Best, >=20 > Niels >=20 > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:40:58AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > If I'm correct, this draft, which is currently in the RFC Editor > > Queue , will be the > > first RFC with an explicit "Human Rights Considerations" section. > >=20 > > 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.) > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > hrpc mailing list > > hrpc@irtf.org > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >=20 > --=20 >=20 > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital >=20 > Article 19 > www.article19.org >=20 > PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 =20 > 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 >=20 --=20 Niels ten Oever Researcher and PhD Candidate Datactive Research Group University of Amsterdam PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 =20 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 --SO98HVl1bnMOfKZd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAlpoZZoACgkQDtg/OkaK yLNy8Q/7Bi/V64pd0kKSuAhAhkXwKmp1JS5thHFHIXPCOxEcaAAWEaIDIF4/Qq/H JHdhry8mxrotOYTQUkMf/e8O1ucPIhNszeqYZioV0hwmtgbV1oNtKgjGmby/EO6x lMNnSPoGKqCQd9B1YhJ75cPnkagX7UV4Q+cSWWVJmGX9swPPsmkXvR5//F0wSEeS gYOuj/nEF4U6qfeY3mUMPuV2NJm7RqvBzytxzL0iR/CqCq7u6Tjz+EKX9HwOEPe5 4E5Vdh8oUh5mjnEZToz/CY8ObRVGy9bCq2pDbT/5rDZoRdAD3UOXgdWV1I1zvUsG SiLzrNcqJeBDBkLXU6RUO0rp272glDQ05DqtmbQTxXW16eSjEsjZC73QV970hlWK 9ht3iRjochRYQsQYcKkjw/Ip51OU8szInYDueUjl+hzYy9h8EPkJ9CUkw2bA121i lyK34NcQG+86VAOkRp9eBQeCC4o9qHLGAMJ9ZesHAdMye8Sy/RB5ChoPk4UTlATz DporZpV0IPn9mc1U51pJCceHJygu0DT+4QkNXJZrQepD0dCggixG19wsW3IOoX16 plWfjpFFYa1iqkojSCF/qvbJtX/tDCxKkneBfaQtSfIsVeV8FfdUoLWepR0eAZYf TqA3BXZzMDf10/BspFpfbAm5ON5Lvf23vG6Az2dlZ/nLBoLaVMU= =16OQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --SO98HVl1bnMOfKZd-- From nobody Wed Jan 24 04:41:33 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E30101200E5 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 04:41:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XKzKBPsjS2BE for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 04:41:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0425C1200FC for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 04:41:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eeKMo-0007uW-DN; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:41:26 +0100 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:41:25 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever To: Melinda Shore Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180124124125.GE4995@mir> References: <21d44e51-ed5a-08ac-ab8e-712235e3c8bc@acm.org> <127d8627-ad2a-f7d2-c385-956999f0a9fd@derechosdigitales.org> <20180123105207.GE28814@mir> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="BZaMRJmqxGScZ8Mx" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: c4b563a0315efda5785dbc26b7b539c9 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Freedom of Association on the Internet X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 12:41:32 -0000 --BZaMRJmqxGScZ8Mx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Melinda, Thanks a lot for this. Reply in-line: On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 03:01:54PM -0900, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 1/23/18 1:52 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote: > > I think it is ready too. It has been discussed extensively at several > > meetings and on the list and is in pretty good shape. >=20 > Well ... >=20 > Overall I think the document is reasonable except for section 7, > which is sufficiently incorrect that I don't think document can be > adopted as-is. > Happy to discuss, hope that the topic is sufficiently interesting to work o= n and therefore merits consideration to become RG doc.=20 =20 > It is absolutely true that the internet enables association, that > association is a human right, and that it must be protected. It does > not follow at all that network have association rights which must be > protected. =20 section 7. says:=20 This means that rights and obligations that sterm from this organizational form, should also be protected and respected. So I don't think this section says that as 'network has rights', except whe= n you would interpret 'the network' as a combination of users and the (diff= erent layers of) technology. The section argues that because networks are s= o interconnected with freedom of association we need to think how this shou= ld be protected on the network level, and thinking of the Internet as an as= sembly itself could help with that.=20 What is complicated here is that of course the Internet is a network of net= works, so how does the right of self-determination of one AS relate to the = ability of users to associate. That is the tension that this section aims t= o touch upon.=20 > I really don't know how many times techies have to > repeat this before it's reflected in the document.=20 I think one of the problems is that tech is never just tech, but that tech = is always socio-technical. We cannot think the tech without its use(r)s. > I think it's > correct and appropriate to talk about ways in which disruptions to > connectivity can affect the freedom to associate but I am completely > unclear why that means that a given network has a right to expect > transport from another network.=20 Interesting. I think we're actually we're actually agreeing. But I am not s= ure whether 'disruptions' would fully capture it, because that implies ad h= oc or temporary hiccup in data flow.=20 In other words: what can users expect while they associate on the Internet,= and what are the implications for ASes of these expectations? > I think there needs to be a distinction > between the tools that are used to enable rights and the rights > themselves, and that's not reflected in the document as it currently > stands. (or as we might say, "this is a layer violation"). > But the users (who are always the rights holders), do need the Internet to = associate. This brings about obligations for the network. When users use th= e Internet to associate, it is also the Internet that should be protected.= =20 =20 > So basically I think it would be helpful if sections 6.4 and 7 were > replaced with a discussion of ways in which network disruptions can > interfere with the right to freely associate. I think the argument we're developing here (and I fully agree the argument = is not finished, therefore we really need your brainpower), goes further th= an disruptions. It it touches on the question of how to build a public spac= e on private infrastructure. Happy to discuss, and I hope this helps. Best, Niels >=20 > Melinda >=20 > --=20 > Software longa, hardware brevis >=20 > PGP fingerprint: 795A 714B CD08 F996 AEFE > AB36 FE18 57E9 6B9D A293 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --=20 Niels ten Oever Researcher and PhD Candidate Datactive Research Group University of Amsterdam PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 =20 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 --BZaMRJmqxGScZ8Mx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAlpofvUACgkQDtg/OkaK yLOVoA//cOGP4nDYiwRMQJ4250FjqUxm6Z4zc9gCMnLNNWVaTZEgnX+JPtefhaCz wvdmB0lq91jqsaIGI3CvQ1pPrc0EnwloqQz6jf4IbsKMv0RKFLeNqoUQKSjpEBxg 4/nk7aOLqJGOZqDQxeXNvAUdGQY0pcuNZyJxiaeyJFoSmfa+9eE2L6WCwP/+OsD+ 4VP23fBajU4GTUGRQ4rIQDXz2FDtEZxVZ8wNXfz87CpG9RyWCeeYyawgNotUZkUe o5NdhzvikPSSEpZVMp74mjlYMSipiGpjunFIRtLAXxw7zzXBOxrJ/0Fj5Na0bNIq d3c72rvAFkQbFFU0ZIMfYMdtLu+z54E1MVBbkeXu0KRg9eVqrFZDc8/L7cQHENuY 7t67wJiCKQIy6EsxcyZEip7Q31KQEOxL3gtAc3CCPpB0D1SECDvBkMVOtEINf1XV 2wx2m/9Ac/3crE5VtHHze+rsFR16+3er4MNXA31kXc7taChbgv2bQskFrzII0CSs 7f+vSreCiGiGlDEQqEK0A0vJbw7oSTHuHr0ZBqBAVUgcKOTRGD1kPJ79GfasPrnH R6CxIM8Nu4tXiX7Rv0ZyygW9V3lq3Ikgf+ZalNRBQN0SR96NxOLEf5ovnK288a7X PQ2iquEZcbmbb3WvZQ8jCBM6cHPJFZZ/QMURBe4xcM0YpsG1Pw4= =F2nd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --BZaMRJmqxGScZ8Mx-- From nobody Wed Jan 24 04:47:29 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D59C120721 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 04:47:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8lQlVGY1-LHQ for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 04:47:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D60B120227 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 04:47:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eeKSY-0001qj-2W; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:47:22 +0100 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:47:21 +0100 From: Niels ten Oever To: Fred Baker Cc: Niels ten Oever , S Moonesamy , Gisela Perez de Acha , hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180124124721.GF4995@mir> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20180108132649.114ec2e0@elandnews.com> <20180123092518.GB913@mir> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ExXT7PjY8AI4Hyfa" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: 6e23ea5b143b5fdf6b2724ffc44cc2a7 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Comments on draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 12:47:29 -0000 --ExXT7PjY8AI4Hyfa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 03:21:25PM -0800, Fred Baker wrote: >=20 >=20 > > On Jan 23, 2018, at 1:25 AM, Niels ten Oever wrot= e: > >=20 > >> I have some comments on draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02. According= to > >> the Research Group Charter, one of its objectives is to "expose the re= lation > >> between protocols and human rights". The research questions (Section = 3) are > >> about internet architecture and whether the internet is an assembly or > >> association. That seems like stretching that objective. > >=20 > > Why? The right to freedom of association is a human rights. If the Inte= rnet architecture could be understood as an assembly, it should also be pro= tected as such. >=20 > I'm not sure why the Internet Architecture would be viewed as an assembly= of anything that has "human" rights. Fill me in? >=20 > The Internet Architecture is a communication medium among a number of sys= tems. Some of those systems are used by people some of the time. Most of th= em offer a service, and that service might not be to people. For example, D= NS offers the service of translating names to addresses. IOT is a collectio= n of sensors, actuators, and other things, which might for example be part = of an electrical utility. I might hope that an IOT device periodically has = a name translation time out and perform a DNS lookup to refresh its memory.= In that context, there is essentially never a human in the loop - one has = machines that are performing a service performing it for other machines tha= t are part of a service. One could argue that the *utility* offers a servic= e to its customers, some of which are people, and the employees of the util= ity are people, but to argue from that that the combination forms an assemb= ly is a Really Big Stretch. >=20 > In addition, what I just described is at the highest layer, the applicati= on layer. The layers below that - transport, comprising UDP, TCP, QUIC, etc= , the network layer, the link layer, and the physical connectivity - NEVER = have people in them, and are not services to people. They are services to t= he applications in question. >=20 > So I really seriously can't make sense of the jump from a service archite= cture for communications among systems to anything that might be named "Hum= an". Humans are users of some parts of the system some of the time, but as = a whole the system is not human. Thanks Fred. Newspapers, radio stations, union buildings all have no rights= , but they form a vital infrastructure for rightsholders, and therefore are= protected. Since the Internet is a vital tool for freedom of association (= among other things) we should consider what the implications are. Best, Niels > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc --=20 Niels ten Oever Researcher and PhD Candidate Datactive Research Group University of Amsterdam PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 =20 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 --ExXT7PjY8AI4Hyfa Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJFgLcFxK/YqUiGQ6Dtg/OkaKyLMFAlpogFkACgkQDtg/OkaK yLOh6g//XrgoluC6Mgo/xfJh9+nyoUkjTskfA/BecKAiSqbDsf3p9SzTwYTsEpzu +CvPWah2izSC/lb35PdU4J4u8M48zSKnFbYpJicoX4nfIwb2JYfn3YGW20jE5gFv G64sy3gQZL4+XRiFlFCHWAIi1Wd4j9Zwa4I4hQjpDCa9V5qkyueCo31alwJn7rsF kNmNTZQD7BU+7ZJvyGr7qaD7HVvVTsRSzn0kTbgxnqXwYzGPAtM7qO4369Vya4dh ij1gsbk6Oiat4fTk78kVWC7Vdu8QkKdJg3sKcv040eW/lOV/4tRwHDbh9L06hyFP 3EGuO4GkI3WokmliP18xvVCmMS3/h42/69Q1/daNeKcrW6clccYOUOoWEscq6Ynf CO6gUFN7BcYbVgjxWlLLcIXefHaHTW1t1pbccRxamXXKkTREUgYlPG27eq/sXBJL 0S5nKKWdHUtNZLV2JE4NwVkEwwdOmdrLLTPV6rtT47I7IqW5TpoYFiB0CzVMnfBO qGBwjcm5JNMd3fLtpGWgdmFpU5SPfRT2VCj0A7z3uWExu07CtVtXZj8ZPUGCH+c8 YyiSaMi2f3LMKpWeES7ZER6RO0N8s6tL9myMwGEfB8A6JJaIDej5lq5t7IqEqZtW TPNd6j98Yv45J36tcNQ456VQG8lNuEtgoENr60kkUhmHIAE3ZD0= =pce6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ExXT7PjY8AI4Hyfa-- From nobody Wed Jan 24 09:03:26 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1650112708C for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:03:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E9LgQAOrzksl for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:03:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf0-x232.google.com (mail-lf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57FB2127076 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:03:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id f136so6125148lff.8 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:03:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=uu2LOFJNXlfBI8iwsxQ8div2i9DwCBpNobfkWWvWDw4=; b=W0sh6PAxndUXqRjo4gjg1hGcB16Yluv9Qhez+9KDrlfJA5Du/i+oqPRgKS/KHVrwXL l0P/xlfT6r+iMVtYKkyQmpyr5lWB313f7qB0x+xfGG2kdiDteJiowf8C/vTYRHb3EZ1V wiKeX30dSwRZPDlSP6zUcJD1gkfxKYqksbSwAP1Z4cl+0IsAK3GIGoF+gmz6Px6iUcza Dlu/ko2zVQhampm5LJWT9rjkrpFNwRUaViGRqelUzkaIKprr06Nnkv4WA6V/iVMHT5d5 ++b/GQDInGhEqYafLmAWhNgLdoXJLZeO2WIFhRLv3VJUbXXVehX+IHw3ilgkdaKYum7T CBag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=uu2LOFJNXlfBI8iwsxQ8div2i9DwCBpNobfkWWvWDw4=; b=l4u38dzgvmlfWDEtw85APrNPVHSPunE7T3CDgitXtmTTHcIA0Q0xX2fI65nfpgtCmW INnCY8ThlKpvuOlW77wyQ9fnN0MSMR61IMWO0fBpSihBl2j4/FlzLR5EexDXyCyfAQjw J6QYo962qR7TW+ba+tor9vXnMXlh+y4SpVuyczS100GH3+/os+bp0jQDPOZnkPz473sE InKSDAqSHwiFXol7Ard91dA4J5svqjryCj+TOmAlKn7WWKILQCG77MAb+vPGdppWWzWb Qm3Lynam9jnKzUERGtJfKUWoOtx2ciZqYGGld0aFqQbSUPCiADC+qxRlC8IonSKPizyl E0sw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdUbM28DoJ9DZQsly+LY7X8MIx9LpeU9EyV+pEb9RkKzYDtD8Pa oTzzcAzVOBF+2WyciK4tII0DXee/fzHUqrzm8/E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x2247CCODTYEQvLx+oTe/uUSyb6kmAMSqgjlHDOwDqJsdGYGYg4OcGHKPufRkxX+jgILwmlwJaDyc9Ad6OZFF47E= X-Received: by 10.25.159.200 with SMTP id i191mr3590065lfe.84.1516813400256; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:03:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.46.21.22 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:03:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.46.21.22 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:03:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20180124105314.GD4995@mir> References: <20180118094058.xf6amdl3saumvrjr@sources.org> <20180123093625.GF913@mir> <20180124105314.GD4995@mir> From: Shivan Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 12:03:19 -0500 Message-ID: To: Niels ten Oever Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer , Hrpc Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113db04ce9b78d056388a33e" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] About draft-harkins-tls-dragonfly X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:03:25 -0000 --001a113db04ce9b78d056388a33e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" >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. On Jan 24, 2018 5:53 AM, "Niels ten Oever" wrote: > Unfortunately Dan informed me he will only make changes suggested by > editor and IANA. > > Best, > > Niels > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:36:25AM +0100, Niels ten Oever wrote: > > 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: > > > If I'm correct, this draft, which is currently in the RFC Editor > > > Queue , 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.) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > hrpc mailing list > > > hrpc@irtf.org > > > 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 > > > > -- > > Niels ten Oever > Researcher and PhD Candidate > Datactive Research Group > University of Amsterdam > > PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 > 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 > > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > --001a113db04ce9b78d056388a33e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From the draft:
"The most fundamental of Human Rights is the right to pro= tect oneself."

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

On Jan 24, 2018 5:53 AM, "Niels ten Oever" <niels@article19.org> wrote:
Unfortunately Dan informed me he= will only make changes suggested by editor and IANA.

Best,

Niels

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:36:25AM +0100, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> 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 alternativ= e language.
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:40:58AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > If I'm correct, this draft, which is currently in the RFC Edi= tor
> > Queue <https://www.rfc-editor.org/curr= ent_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.)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > hrpc mailing list
> > hrpc@irtf.org
> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc<= /a>
>
> --
>
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
>
> Article 19
> www.article19.org
>
> PGP fingerprint=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A = 9488
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 6= 43A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
>

--

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

PGP fingerprint=C2=A0 =C2=A0 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0643A 0= ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3


_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

--001a113db04ce9b78d056388a33e-- From nobody Wed Jan 24 09:19:15 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA2081270A0 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:19:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SblzLt0kQpPg for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:19:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wr0-x22c.google.com (mail-wr0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72AD21271FD for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:19:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id a1so129799wri.5 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:19:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=CGKHgu5D7FbSnLLoRTLher/TkzANlbcHIuG4/bwZnpQ=; b=W/ZN35Cn/zB2LhPJR5UeHANIk9Zg5JnpdXrK/2DGNbjSdT9qy4FGhFq8U93x4N8+qO Tok9s0mXX7qChfiWde8FcwN5JTo3mr8ojHIiX12ANuEh4mzGTDILdRczaYfCNI+KZQPO 8JhBbGTwyDcvj2eYukUkAINJQHJ8l4uuNtnaE4HO2CSvUGqYcEptgz3+FdEZJpg7XD/Y ta918ys5Fd1yFMLQLcs/s5mEBm+PSVJsZ70E5No8xCgpMSJ9Xd6bnqzG5YjxvNph410g sStJNPm9gdPz6bc9bqBmCSPZxmh+dnE5IKA24PP9BhslW3EdY3BiaesBNtq+fKTrNQGN msvQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CGKHgu5D7FbSnLLoRTLher/TkzANlbcHIuG4/bwZnpQ=; b=nN69w5FU/Yqh2mPZmiAErVJNfLfJUxwHxk3KwexraKEh8Dm6VhnCV4PT0BlTRJiZSZ bl+0CEwy7RFV6EmPs1yJxmlXjA/mQ2RxGYWRerMBc/9WJzIdmIRgb8SwMg762i4TMOpH /gfs0ojRG204evXRuSwopQxSYhsRR9mpa6UKdSHZtx/F+NFHWyA2HqZpO6Zro2Cq8gTX uKSpKSPm0bfFaCdW3enNFHBYeAE6zSmMhJj6Ticz9ciRGt8EFVaur7uLjQ9XjvUUoH3T WjtOsl3ef769VylEBNV86jxj+XI36tpXKxSp2zQ1Am2TKXcx8ogeYenS7SeAX8ZobLP9 l3/Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdbtnyvXf8kOmJxtaJhRS0wSfNsgUgZpreNQ7IUuE5H7Oq14br4 oy7JxKVTb55C33NmKFJLiE3YGcheUHzlZ10c9Qg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x22620xbFqAKomkIVIbdA1ZrRxFGAc2J6V1/0KECAJjymC4+l6GnCLolVt3g3IIo8Zb2WAW0k2pGjumTheBapb4I= X-Received: by 10.223.144.195 with SMTP id i61mr6803160wri.73.1516814340899; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:19:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: cattekwaad@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.178.246 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:18:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20180118094058.xf6amdl3saumvrjr@sources.org> <20180123093625.GF913@mir> <20180124105314.GD4995@mir> From: Corinne Cath Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:18:20 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: cBvrn2mcAUJ7oJrMfmaYiEk_XN0 Message-ID: To: Shivan Cc: Niels ten Oever , Stephane Bortzmeyer , Hrpc Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c06b43efac95d056388dbc1" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] About draft-harkins-tls-dragonfly X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:19:06 -0000 --94eb2c06b43efac95d056388dbc1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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. On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Shivan wrote: > 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. > > On Jan 24, 2018 5:53 AM, "Niels ten Oever" wrote: > >> Unfortunately Dan informed me he will only make changes suggested by >> editor and IANA. >> >> Best, >> >> Niels >> >> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:36:25AM +0100, Niels ten Oever wrote: >> > 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: >> > > If I'm correct, this draft, which is currently in the RFC Editor >> > > Queue , 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.) >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > hrpc mailing list >> > > hrpc@irtf.org >> > > 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 >> > >> >> -- >> >> Niels ten Oever >> Researcher and PhD Candidate >> Datactive Research Group >> University of Amsterdam >> >> PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 >> 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> hrpc mailing list >> hrpc@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc >> >> > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > -- Corinne Cath Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath Email: ccath@turing.ac.uk & corinnecath@gmail.com Twitter: @C_Cath --94eb2c06b43efac95d056388dbc1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Interesting interpretation. I am pretty sure RFC8280 takes as i= ts authoritative source the UDHR + ICCPR, which in my recollection do not i= nclude any "right to protect oneself" so not sure this can even b= e considered a human rights consideration.=C2=A0

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 5:03 PM,= Shivan <shivankaul.1993@gmail.com> wrote:
From the draft:
"The most fundamental of Human R= ights is the right to protect oneself."
=
Not sure how the Editor suggests edits, b= ut surely such a claim requires= some form of substantiation.

On = Jan 24, 2018 5:53 AM, "Niels ten Oever" <niels@article19.org> wrote:
Unfortunately Dan inform= ed me he will only make changes suggested by editor and IANA.

Best,

Niels

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:36:25AM +0100, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> 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 alternativ= e language.
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:40:58AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > If I'm correct, this draft, which is currently in the RFC Edi= tor
> > Queue <https://www.rfc-editor.org/curr= ent_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.)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > hrpc mailing list
> > hrpc@irtf.org<= /a>
> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc<= /a>
>
> --
>
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
>
> Article 19
> www.article19.org
>
> PGP fingerprint=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A = 9488
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 6= 43A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
>

--

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

PGP fingerprint=C2=A0 =C2=A0 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0643A 0= ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3


_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc


_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc




--
=
Corinne Cath
Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Al= an Turing Institute

Web: www.oii= .ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath
Email: ccath@turing.ac.uk & corinnecath@gmail.com
Twitter= : @C_Cath
=
--94eb2c06b43efac95d056388dbc1-- From nobody Wed Jan 24 09:21:35 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50C81270AE for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:21:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=mJsaHF4A; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=A4Jsl+gu Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3NGad-XUvWEU for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:21:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F78B1270AB for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:21:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73522BE072 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:21:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1516814461; bh=EutejtF/nlChsIUP9sAi6V9U7hJ8meJ4hPEOyiDD8mI=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=mJsaHF4AtZN6UleJw9LYT/7MBkEU6F2kh6dUmoH7whfkSrXx7EubazCaVFw+sm8zd 7zZVvkVCPJXzIWVR6oj6Z4TaB49/1UT1fvEkFH1neFHu+7LaGwto8mQwQoZg/OP81u BhP6eRGnifqTmZxycESX0/3YUB28CJi0jlfugo0o= X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tZmBz50JZ060 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:21:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 12:20:59 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1516814460; bh=EutejtF/nlChsIUP9sAi6V9U7hJ8meJ4hPEOyiDD8mI=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=A4Jsl+gu2jzvRnzwwK9aAyXRs9ytzOO3NuYFin9TwOTLuZDoD9F82Qw+Xeq0aWdYW wxxFh9Waehc74xLjoirGZotbWzYeBDU+Zg9y4KfBoLiNQ8jO9mMkdE4cNMqN0NHPkQ 491IzFFvyF7Z7iPlR2HLIJinXRoQpHwgnXd/z89U= From: Andrew Sullivan To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180124172059.GA13067@mx4.yitter.info> References: <20180118094058.xf6amdl3saumvrjr@sources.org> <20180123093625.GF913@mir> <20180124105314.GD4995@mir> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180124105314.GD4995@mir> Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] About draft-harkins-tls-dragonfly X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:21:34 -0000 On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:53:14AM +0100, Niels ten Oever wrote: > 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 ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From nobody Wed Jan 24 09:29:09 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8DDC1270B4 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:29:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZFMmHyMtVC3D for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:29:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x22c.google.com (mail-wm0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CF2B1270AB for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:29:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id g1so9884789wmg.2 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:29:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=uPDT1srLVuqQOT2xXQq/+y5jMxLvw7SOyCfUg31nKPo=; b=agdUDN/ukbM/Lf7iAE3eHgjjaUoqjHsEFPpiY76uncXv4TRd0wBQq56vwgDuHAGy39 Sw0fcqMA4tkYQbDeGLpb8i/ErEBDhns1D1A08/SvBj0geCfvBMG1svOc+9CPGa9K5wOo 3f0Pd0gtpstIkiZjJxB4g3mJL+E6OEr4ykbnzM440VfyLTgD1QIak/SlRjnxGZZf8y6I snG8G/T1ovHodqGWakWVm6FHekVaN/uSJjP9qug+diRSTatJFZECh66jPklnWr1yfP3k snZBKBfaRue3gwTVIIC6btBjBgv6+EUiLANKwreFEMdveXC8gF4Sywcl62KYxdhxRZxW XvnQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=uPDT1srLVuqQOT2xXQq/+y5jMxLvw7SOyCfUg31nKPo=; b=KAfYjeEsqgBalPBOSbLECBe45Npuinhwy2BRRQ3FQcsAB9sDMJRu7yG0kTFctqrN05 JbGINssW8ABBVFr9WH5jxoDJyCq8/OjDVkndM299+ZEl7TpnIUYnm28IDkFuD2P1+utD lye61Et5sJyxSxJlrCxWsOgLySnn3iCZjqIL/Xqk38ephVXAfBwskwuF57Zqztll7WVO 7hTr+2YtTdogRJFxDY7XyGIa1taE8AZhHEzmDzj3fuY+qy5GxvqJjWu/3VAwx9UFTFJQ Hgn63Pps4NHYuTlKBCDdjcItzERPwAJksvJYQB3fNxYFSr/CZAwZQC8FUME+iABKsMvg MLCw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytftX6ejcucDA1wVZvC6Tnxazxd4/BwLekbZg3eEoLf79f4Nxil8 CG7aOM8IAY9CUy3di0yxURd3RtsV0JQwV6Uqxtw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227r4xUgqW3ojqeCOYA1PqGGVI5/Gsn7TTxDndEMFpAtaDRQiuqkBJA3FFvajFzP9f3i3mjMnhfxRbRtKsd11UI= X-Received: by 10.28.114.3 with SMTP id n3mr5315036wmc.124.1516814943775; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:29:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: cattekwaad@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.178.246 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:28:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20180124172059.GA13067@mx4.yitter.info> References: <20180118094058.xf6amdl3saumvrjr@sources.org> <20180123093625.GF913@mir> <20180124105314.GD4995@mir> <20180124172059.GA13067@mx4.yitter.info> From: Corinne Cath Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:28:23 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0s1UamiNznZgjNrYhWIMSvvM8Uw Message-ID: To: Andrew Sullivan Cc: Hrpc Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e082d1214e9f0fa056388ff5c" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] About draft-harkins-tls-dragonfly X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:29:08 -0000 --089e082d1214e9f0fa056388ff5c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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? On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:53:14AM +0100, Niels ten Oever wrote: > > 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 > ajs@anvilwalrusden.com > > _______________________________________________ > hrpc mailing list > hrpc@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > -- Corinne Cath Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath Email: ccath@turing.ac.uk & corinnecath@gmail.com Twitter: @C_Cath --089e082d1214e9f0fa056388ff5c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Silly question perhaps - but how does this work for the privacy= considerations? What happens if somebody's interpretation of privacy c= learly does not square with RFC6973?
=
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Andrew Sull= ivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:53:14AM +0100, = Niels ten Oever wrote:
> Unfortunately Dan informed me he will only make changes suggested by e= ditor and IANA.
>

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

This _might_ suggest, however, some input to the current RG work about
how to use this innovation.=C2=A0 What could be improved?

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

_______________________________________________
hrpc mailing list
hrpc@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc



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

We= b: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath
Email: ccath@turing.ac.uk & corinnecath@gmail.comTwitter: @C_Cath
--089e082d1214e9f0fa056388ff5c-- From nobody Wed Jan 24 10:16:57 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D54271273E2 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:16:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=OCv1zH4Y; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=c958zZ4w Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7OLoxrddyOfQ for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:16:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 405A6127342 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:16:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45FBEBE072 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:16:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1516817783; bh=vCXQFC+AEyOQZ3xiecGBYvvU3wGWUBZ11MQSRy5LkxY=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=OCv1zH4YJnL6RKZFDyHeKD/+JjHyuH4GRJ9OHDjC6ivixcDn6+f/atUGD+Ge5WhbH 5AD5z6B3oU+yBkFpeFFGGCJyi8QWDPSCgpJBOpgGtgFOD5mZRu3gLGc36/7xM/f6Qg RZcD/drTVsIhcjt0ZFvcPMM2sOe1yLXl0us4l4Zs= X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8beu83XpKfrQ for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:16:22 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:16:20 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1516817782; bh=vCXQFC+AEyOQZ3xiecGBYvvU3wGWUBZ11MQSRy5LkxY=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=c958zZ4wDJDw0omFN0rOuBKQtM2rKvZhstrKTQqbwVti8PQLbuV99KqUG42raoxT7 43ay4Tpkg1HfRFucQX5dSjRuPLayNfCv5EKw50FJpnPX2r364pqTa8Bw6hXUW3+TeQ XLtQgOTCShLWCxezZET0noLsfqaLNe505RR9HsCU= From: Andrew Sullivan To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180124181620.GA13521@mx4.yitter.info> References: <20180118094058.xf6amdl3saumvrjr@sources.org> <20180123093625.GF913@mir> <20180124105314.GD4995@mir> <20180124172059.GA13067@mx4.yitter.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] About draft-harkins-tls-dragonfly X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:16:56 -0000 On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 05:28:23PM +0000, Corinne Cath wrote: > 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? 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 ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From nobody Wed Jan 24 10:35:17 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9432F127419 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:35:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nomountain-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ng11DrnOAHSA for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:35:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pg0-x233.google.com (mail-pg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D143C127342 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:35:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg0-x233.google.com with SMTP id o13so3299759pgs.2 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:35:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nomountain-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=vyABSFIj7DCoc4kUirD6BOsLt41O2mupmj2UHupRMuQ=; b=pQDI/MLtzPFmGeJd+kzp+0DFeUTWjUqLv4q9Bu67tkjGYRWB3q+jhej1UxyTznjzJv IRcGXbQ1LYZk9Rnsqvh6SQEy8woR/QPBOgzyuHEslHrChDcsfl4tsjV7iP/Wl4iWVf+T zmT6imumfUx/yt4BFbBOdP8icjR3sH5Gqxf8xfI/ZVePlolR6NyRDguqB82qMiFTu4Mj dVF8Adn6x7LXX8MN8x7Rc2obtTlL31U+lXfG9/euaPRpqB4SV/n0yVFIBrzinmFVdKSk nm0MzY3LdwlMdYrG7I8nuCjTusLfAAI5Zyt8jXwdCd1muDzrm5Xg9ih4yHvw97b9yHVE baCA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=vyABSFIj7DCoc4kUirD6BOsLt41O2mupmj2UHupRMuQ=; b=g3nhztBRuOzTKJ3EcFf2WGeVe45w4mxdS7FYMdfE+HZ8f5ytAAk9ERTGY5L2hDEAJO I2E7PZQYNkttK6i4RVWH/7AkF0j9ORlAdY3hy97copAouwPqpphuEYiPh6cleVr4x0b2 UEJALIqRI4J2Tgjtm7+SSkuEsFH0OyQhzxeVHwaVdwRtLurY47M11nEYitDZgrgf66Dl JWSU1mh6MbRFO0RrRoxHpVMQO5DxQ4Wu4SFwD5SxUOqai9k+0bkA4VuvGj6PpyW9Ydfq kDLfJQAjr12Ch8grJR6RqeUN/6LuHJEEe87pgCFRuWE2fVdSIhkApnN04ceNqC2zbF7T lLTA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytc3CopA6oMa6f2tTNB2LXYpXCHeEgHQ/P9D11rtNo0+u8LteEpa FU9gcDFFdTah4RpXZctega8b/ws= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224IzxxJjzZ1F34UBPshuv29QlSnrY3rktyp0YDsMB6qNW3D9i2YMxN7Bh4iwROg+cu4cWDhLg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:4683:: with SMTP id p3-v6mr339234pld.408.1516818912552; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:35:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from aspen.local (63-140-68-28-radius.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [63.140.68.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l13sm1688395pgn.9.2018.01.24.10.35.11 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:35:11 -0800 (PST) To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <20180118094058.xf6amdl3saumvrjr@sources.org> <20180123093625.GF913@mir> <20180124105314.GD4995@mir> <20180124172059.GA13067@mx4.yitter.info> From: Melinda Shore Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:35:08 -0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180124172059.GA13067@mx4.yitter.info> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="zvUJLn5FGjCv4EMYU4efpdnNMqehhhSG5" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] About draft-harkins-tls-dragonfly X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:35:16 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --zvUJLn5FGjCv4EMYU4efpdnNMqehhhSG5 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8efPkx5qBFZp6ubYHQkVKgvhtZhjOB1sa"; protected-headers="v1" From: Melinda Shore To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: [hrpc] About draft-harkins-tls-dragonfly References: <20180118094058.xf6amdl3saumvrjr@sources.org> <20180123093625.GF913@mir> <20180124105314.GD4995@mir> <20180124172059.GA13067@mx4.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20180124172059.GA13067@mx4.yitter.info> --8efPkx5qBFZp6ubYHQkVKgvhtZhjOB1sa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 1/24/18 8:20 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > This _might_ suggest, however, some input to the current RG work about > 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 --=20 Software longa, hardware brevis PGP fingerprint: 795A 714B CD08 F996 AEFE AB36 FE18 57E9 6B9D A293 --8efPkx5qBFZp6ubYHQkVKgvhtZhjOB1sa-- --zvUJLn5FGjCv4EMYU4efpdnNMqehhhSG5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJRBAEBCgA7FiEEOwSIcj4Q6xsnay8FuIZGkzoegS4FAlpo0d0dHG1lbGluZGEu c2hvcmVAbm9tb3VudGFpbi5uZXQACgkQuIZGkzoegS4WqA//bwj8RqWiIvT2wgUZ jMjgQAXgcVS/ceyGclP+0dSfqrfx8CawPxYYnWwQIQUAvKlghwYSYiSnbcbWM4oT LYTViFIV+9bYJvIUwSnj78PXI1I5PVFC2hbZL/UbVvhZoHKwzvREuL4qgLhs3+8y 5LEOzsE0CW6zaiswTb/wGUC9D+8zzG5WYCRqUDwRF9yhEv5dnhmOMQUhNttcp1zc rtehqammL+Ugvdz+yghg6vp8W0fk9jl9gN/T1eaAD+Qz2QByvcIYVXyxmTekVq8g CcSVEdFd0UYDR26ltmRaBlRdN1A7spPmQrZN6jbcv3pb14oTN/N8lIPHgPFPOO+E +jpD/qaGmzHlsOEHNJKVVLA2xMRh5h/exuB9xUXGw6+NEj0M+R5BGJKGMNGX3mY/ qGC8oRhqyX7eiacls6yA9ns8scU1vNFLU3DURXaPZIXz3HuNpwlnF6XGC9h/VD+L zTzPNDvpUpPyq7P2fDOdRYtpSkmz0mB38TcS3hdD+PNMKw5/bnWUBiOJPIdfcF9i sHqBl+o1uk68SH2cXhC6VpQBQYc69I/k+tIek9l9V9HEt+ZdpSpfNShyHCj1zbu4 H3OnFeSLGFNeUtytvD+bAd31mErQWzjn4ez6kf6mlnmLX/Jm2HVN40pPn7vpIga4 fBTKWQDIStmlvzF40FO8ZTGG3pc= =dYS5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --zvUJLn5FGjCv4EMYU4efpdnNMqehhhSG5-- From nobody Wed Jan 24 10:49:09 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F3F01201FA for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:49:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nomountain-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 53TMV4Gf-AvA for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:49:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf0-x22c.google.com (mail-pf0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC4BA1275F4 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:49:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id i66so3791391pfd.7 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:49:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nomountain-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=8no1pNYYLGwTvjcLwmHH3+A8HEsm26sCx3/Fisy0USc=; b=0NvBAfK+S0Uqzik4vN0JTTofi1pPQh2jm2CFeQKX+FApwOZbYiYTo/nRQRhajZ0aBy ye6BMopEM8s9dXO7vPmjlWEEzweP0F5TbKxM+UJnIgWp1Q4jQDAy+Td7R1evxbE3thsN m+r9EKjmrHwQjGth1a8ihlqyTQYb5alUsunkoKEL76mWygNx+gYt3zvWA6oZnkzv7qgO lyqkzjWIuXNn2NbUqr9K97aAo55yU3xT3g9yCGl+vHJ41VzoZbnLukRGU3RflUbwtCnK 5hFmYoRAe40Abk8ZY2eogG2SvIZ5mS4PLoylri6Trf/c9W68erQLxHg0XQGijttrEVNu ZTDQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=8no1pNYYLGwTvjcLwmHH3+A8HEsm26sCx3/Fisy0USc=; b=Ifoi/IsT4q2EPubID7tAgrUNwe0SOhdCyLVBy4wAldjqfAlGqmAXGJ/bjEnhk4LaBS 0jDsKO66oaZcOqt0cKANklYVCgJtVTn/41M5Y7SinA+imMBjmDsatXmYBklk3Q8KxIRD XijGkr/3Dp3HSYg4sclM/rUU8TTHFI7yecmgcNs9s41xsVuuQTaG6QWVWgVfj+XyeW+X vNjorlsidqrJCVjGNFKXt7LtisXj/gWThMOkTpzed2JCsN8PLGcnMe6GQH+WKPw6tXED nA8CF8EoN7qz7UriWunQ0dDK6BSCnyRWyJhfCr5VRwkGrmE0eFmNwLTKTYZPIQn9IyxT EsLA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdV253jyG4ryt+wKMSgdPSAtorQ2SlLMBShlJut5zxHwDRduozN jFgsbPAPRu4gR1bRDTbmjHAbKKw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225CqKT5rXGCGE2TMhPIIQdVCvl9rdsZ+12jQ4ctirJOwiHMrFYU9q6REQe5Ypg+bwJNWt/Xsw== X-Received: by 10.98.74.20 with SMTP id x20mr13984909pfa.191.1516819745921; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:49:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from aspen.local (63-140-68-28-radius.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [63.140.68.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h74sm13458271pfh.28.2018.01.24.10.49.04 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:49:05 -0800 (PST) To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <6.2.5.6.2.20180108132649.114ec2e0@elandnews.com> <20180123092518.GB913@mir> <20180124124721.GF4995@mir> From: Melinda Shore Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:49:02 -0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180124124721.GF4995@mir> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wqrHvaiq2Tj2WasKkdtyeymjy6pdhpBrM" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Comments on draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:49:08 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --wqrHvaiq2Tj2WasKkdtyeymjy6pdhpBrM Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="lDMZd6KXKQPh16yC8GGDJSMrv05FXZwXm"; protected-headers="v1" From: Melinda Shore To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Comments on draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02 References: <6.2.5.6.2.20180108132649.114ec2e0@elandnews.com> <20180123092518.GB913@mir> <20180124124721.GF4995@mir> In-Reply-To: <20180124124721.GF4995@mir> --lDMZd6KXKQPh16yC8GGDJSMrv05FXZwXm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 1/24/18 3:47 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote: > Thanks Fred. Newspapers, radio stations, union buildings all have no > rights, but they form a vital infrastructure for rightsholders, and > therefore are protected. Since the Internet is a vital tool for > freedom of association (among other things) we should consider what > the implications are. I don't think anybody is saying otherwise (and I have little doubt that someone will correct me if I'm wrong), but that the suggestion that the internet itself is an association. The statement that I find the most muddled about this is contained in the last two sentences of section 7: The Internet is made of up interconnected ASes (one would argue that this doesn't include IXPs, but most modern IXPs will have an ASN for their route server (and possibly a separate ASN for their management infrastructure), which jointly form an assembly and an association. This assembly and association should be protected. This means that rights and obligations that sterm from this organizational form, should also be protected and respected. I think it would be helpful if the document narrowed the scope of the discussion of networks and of the internet as an association to how disruptions in the network can interfere with the right to associate. It's a very useful document otherwise. Melinda --=20 Software longa, hardware brevis PGP fingerprint: 795A 714B CD08 F996 AEFE AB36 FE18 57E9 6B9D A293 --lDMZd6KXKQPh16yC8GGDJSMrv05FXZwXm-- --wqrHvaiq2Tj2WasKkdtyeymjy6pdhpBrM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJRBAEBCgA7FiEEOwSIcj4Q6xsnay8FuIZGkzoegS4FAlpo1R4dHG1lbGluZGEu c2hvcmVAbm9tb3VudGFpbi5uZXQACgkQuIZGkzoegS67wA/+PPXjLRuvbo/5QNqs qL38W7vX0orUHvCooOW8FDuotbE3EPwpNHIRixCLSYGMEG7NoFJTA3At80CQ8kNq 3NI7IOABqomM+fPGUrbVIIQu9ms0z0i5RyP+s0Z/5fzlKCGiqTUiOwvSTtOaXdeX GC13cBcBEZYwhd2JS7S9uFrcG1dGGOzgzv2Qtg6STGhc32yUYGO8qYmi1TySbdWD SCTGTL9fi55uXCS2mjy0aP3mCL5X36DTn0XpVgCIgTnizD6SdbxEcQHGEKYjEr4y u0Gnqfdm4snrgjRxq3W2HJ38znGIREb6xc4WpGoLjHGw1xmUi9ytoGKUQc6t3CQ/ E6fA7LpMLz5zRJvjcTWKoFtuZCNfHI2ZczarmWLPUkVGwLKBzWiouwYv7GNRQqGl TSKH5e7/8HZOoit12L9GAc2pitUnEaWvvwfdes14tkDOl6Epe0MB8JKe3NYLujAE Tmp8RKjteDaLqCqYAFiZCkoOV9HVpI4bIaQkI0/xcqiYlihsuQrUCzzOZQLW4F7I IH1NfYpcViOp+yEAGCLxwABQdwDKWRodp5XmccUJPRlnbd4CfdNLrANtpbVjDR/g Vp3vsPwwvjZ6sS7Z1+Y342qcTum9f0CKArgiHgDPHlOONHYqAv0/aGPv2DKpICmS HIxSbiodpkfwx0KLTNC7PnqoXXg= =+qy9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wqrHvaiq2Tj2WasKkdtyeymjy6pdhpBrM-- From nobody Wed Jan 24 11:42:35 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62A571271DF for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:42:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hFnhr0ah3Jry for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:42:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2095C12700F for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:42:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4072; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1516822951; x=1518032551; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=4UBFaNKnoQTAYzAYndGFMMycvGSaV25+TxFMKH5sJo0=; b=gGqCa1HDIU6drvQa+78OQ54xeJXrCbk4vru5FxLsAYFKOA+EZ8+aES4o c6hPzT4FYL88AD8wXq/7W6zE8vW7z81ar20fNsZzHFIL1xKo91EifAiX7 Cdmzv+PHxSyTO/DF8kgUHCGBZoso9b5ku/RDV3RP0t4lCFeQfoG+WGA7e A=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CqAQAE4Wha/xbLJq1IDAoZAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBBwEBAQEBhRyEBHeKIY91mVcHA4U7AoVZFAEBAQEBAQEBAmsohSQBBSN?= =?us-ascii?q?PFwsYExcCAlcGAQwIAQGKMbNJgieKWwEBAQEBAQEDAQEBAQEBARIPhFKFfYMFh?= =?us-ascii?q?F8YFYMtgmUFpAaEXoIxjlKMK4d5l1eBPDYiJYErMxoIGxWCaIRXQI5hAQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.46,409,1511827200"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="1580406" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Jan 2018 19:42:28 +0000 Received: from [10.61.84.169] (ams3-vpn-dhcp5290.cisco.com [10.61.84.169]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0OJgSdJ028985; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:42:28 GMT To: Melinda Shore , hrpc@irtf.org References: <6.2.5.6.2.20180108132649.114ec2e0@elandnews.com> <20180123092518.GB913@mir> <20180124124721.GF4995@mir> From: Eliot Lear Message-ID: <13b60b04-d125-6e6a-36e6-da871cbc460c@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 20:42:27 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="BRKUMFvwSs2R0ItrsIthqFG48u4p097h8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Comments on draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:42:33 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --BRKUMFvwSs2R0ItrsIthqFG48u4p097h8 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="EcprQkHJGW5rjXn8n9BEwO9N5MOIhjmwS"; protected-headers="v1" From: Eliot Lear To: Melinda Shore , hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <13b60b04-d125-6e6a-36e6-da871cbc460c@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [hrpc] Comments on draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02 References: <6.2.5.6.2.20180108132649.114ec2e0@elandnews.com> <20180123092518.GB913@mir> <20180124124721.GF4995@mir> In-Reply-To: --EcprQkHJGW5rjXn8n9BEwO9N5MOIhjmwS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US Hi, On 24.01.18 19:49, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 1/24/18 3:47 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote: >> Thanks Fred. Newspapers, radio stations, union buildings all have no >> rights, but they form a vital infrastructure for rightsholders, and >> therefore are protected. Since the Internet is a vital tool for >> freedom of association (among other things) we should consider what >> the implications are. > I don't think anybody is saying otherwise (and I have little > doubt that someone will correct me if I'm wrong), but that the > suggestion that the internet itself is an association. The > statement that I find the most muddled about this is contained > in the last two sentences of section 7: > > The Internet is made of up interconnected ASes (one would argue that= > this doesn't include IXPs, but most modern IXPs will have an ASN for= > their route server (and possibly a separate ASN for their management= > infrastructure), which jointly form an assembly and an association. > This assembly and association should be protected. This means that > rights and obligations that sterm from this organizational form, > should also be protected and respected. > > I think it would be helpful if the document narrowed the scope of > the discussion of networks and of the internet as an association to > how disruptions in the network can interfere with the right to > associate. It's a very useful document otherwise. > We've been around this block at least once already, and perhaps the issue here is that you are seeking to identify touchpoints in the infrastructure that are directly related to human rights, and that you think the AS or ASN is just such a touch point.=C2=A0 If that is the case= , then I would argue that you have skipped a step to explain the relationship more directly.=C2=A0 But before you go to that effort, I thi= nk it would be helpful to understand why going to that level is necessary.=C2= =A0 We could come up with mechanisms that have nothing to do with ASes and ASNs and the principles should still be applicable, right? Also, be careful of your language with filtering.=C2=A0 As I wrote before= , an embezzler at a bank could have a field day with this stuff.=C2=A0 My furt= her suggestion, by the way, is to invert this to look at how crime interacts with all of these rights. Eliot --EcprQkHJGW5rjXn8n9BEwO9N5MOIhjmwS-- --BRKUMFvwSs2R0ItrsIthqFG48u4p097h8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAlpo4aMACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejMhEAf/RHuhm8QlR/rzQ+z1hgHfE6kYIwokVMj4whAX7DnnoLqwvrWIVsX7sRqy ZucgAY5JqlO84miZLrnMT34MVhCLI9W7dSbsfaLTBGIslHqZYMhOiSBaWz4/tCgW oa9I5Z1YeckfxprmfrWL/KJP2AuTSHKr80q5B36cgGKt3bOgRm2miiDFvuBwVbqf yH0TLmd3rFCxMAtP+BsHqGW4SMKFNb/vvzSx1ZQ3iv/QLpXWdVNDiGWOl83mthgu Zbnf68UA6rfYUwzZH+3HIb1kTluLxEKI8xTb4rGBv9eNcdXbSGwVbot2S+3zU5+l T4ZcJqSdVaUamgF6F4Dik7phLBc9Bg== =cffr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --BRKUMFvwSs2R0ItrsIthqFG48u4p097h8-- From nobody Wed Jan 24 11:46:34 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BAC312751F for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:46:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=EPDyfyIY; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=kZLGkAUP Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B9aw9ALUzQGe for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:46:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF96412700F for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:46:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57BD6BE072 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:46:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1516823160; bh=V+ThmF3VsoVPf8FdSW117OYSFTkSoXfUBB/IvtW58s0=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=EPDyfyIYTw2iNqqZaTLU8LIjAdj5UGVI9S2BgJqF8YbLnUOZLZBS2ykbUJDm6Hguk dxs4RK8MJv7+ouDAUfQx2WOWPZi88woV4at72Ht4/gifUw+tzvD5rjPpwruYE5OXl6 9UUB6W8AfXwv9+14+PfSDvwIhTiwyQ9BEJfAtHTE= X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lgLmLj5qnhn2 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:45:59 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:45:56 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1516823159; bh=V+ThmF3VsoVPf8FdSW117OYSFTkSoXfUBB/IvtW58s0=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=kZLGkAUPQKBpSN5ecvuX2xLgNS7Va4H0znMQUh/M49LG1RLFpzurBN3a0tjm6X3qk O7Hi40dH6cZAp6y5yHvFT/fDDwJMhqAbx7+2NpNjK+fqd6QZ9HydXTOHvF/wV79V5S YQjt3hqGdtaNSeHo2WmmVmHMxZruVjK635oPXeHM= From: Andrew Sullivan To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180124194548.GA13745@anvilwalrusden.com> References: <21d44e51-ed5a-08ac-ab8e-712235e3c8bc@acm.org> <127d8627-ad2a-f7d2-c385-956999f0a9fd@derechosdigitales.org> <20180123105207.GE28814@mir> <20180124124125.GE4995@mir> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20180124124125.GE4995@mir> Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Freedom of Association on the Internet X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:46:33 -0000 Hi, On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 01:41:25PM +0100, Niels ten Oever wrote: > I think one of the problems is that tech is never just tech, but that tech is always socio-technical. We cannot think the tech without its use(r)s. > As I think may have been made clear before, not everyone agrees with that assertion; and even if one does, the limits of the application of such agreement may be different for different people. That means that the premise is (again) doing too much work in the argument, and it is a premise that itself needs rather more support than it has. That may be a discussion of another draft, however ;-) > But the users (who are always the rights holders), do need the Internet to associate. This brings about obligations for the network. When users use the Internet to associate, it is also the Internet that should be protected. > The point that I think Melinda is making, and that I have certainly already tried to make before, is that this use of "the Internet" is missing what the Internet is. "The Internet" is a noun more like "the traffic" than "the table": a mass rather than count noun.[1] These two examples are emergent things made up of many other kinds of behaviour, each contributing to but not making up the whole. On the Internet, the emergence is (partially) because of individuable networks -- "Autonomous Systems" -- that each voluntarily participate in the network of networks to make the Internet. But there's an important caveat: each network is operated exclusively by its operators, and participates for locally-defined benefit according to locally-defined needs and desires. In the meat-world, your freedom of association does not extend so far as to require me to associate with you: it's a negative, not a positive, right. If the Internet is made up entirely of ASes participating freely with one another, and if each AS's participation is defined according to locally-defined needs and desires, then it follows that it is _impossible_ to "protect" the Internet in terms of users' associational abilities. For that would create a positive obligation on participating ASes out of a negative right on the part of any given user. And since at a low level there is nothing signified by "the Internet" except the emergent behaviour of those independent ASes (and other networks that could be ASes but aren't yet), there is no other thing to protect and no other obligation that can accrue. > I think the argument we're developing here … touches on the question > of how to build a public space on private infrastructure. It does rather more than touch on this. To make that argument work _at all_, you are either going to need to make some other kind of argument: • Claim that there is a social need that trumps the private nature of the participating ASes. • Work in somehow the always-tricky issue of collective rights and obligations without individual obligation. • Define into existence some new network of last resort that has the positive obligation to carry traffic when nobody else does. • Define "the Internet" to be something other than the emergent propery of those individual networks participating voluntarily, and explain what that is. As it stands, I do not think the draft makes any attempt to do any of those, and I think that may be the core problem. In addition, I don't know how you do any of these without make a pretty strong distinction between "network operator" and "everyone else", where "everyone else" is going to include very large network operators that have an AS and do routing selectively. But, of course, we already _had_ a network that had those properties. It was the telephone network, with rights, obligations, and roles carefully delineated by regulations and government-granted monopoly rights. We can observe some of that in, for instance, the "last mile" networks in many places. But I am pretty far from convinced that any right to freedom of association would be made more operative by reinventing the legal and regulatory regime that made possible telco monopolies the world over; or by revivifying the bureaucratic, government-and-insiders-only nature of international telegraphy treaties. The lowest-level Internet infrastructure operations club is undoubtedly hard to join, and the club certainly doesn't accept that others have a right of association. It is still worlds easier to join than the club of governments, whose members are even more hostile to new applicants. Best regards, A [1] That is not to say that "internet" is a mass noun. You can have two internets. But all the internets are the Internet, and if you add more internets you still have one Internet. -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From nobody Wed Jan 24 12:22:50 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45023129516 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 12:22:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=p5cvMkYN; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=Sn85TKrl Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BBduw5sOpGGw for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 12:22:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5154128961 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 12:22:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([197.227.82.94]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0OKMLvl007077 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Jan 2018 12:22:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1516825353; x=1516911753; bh=BCeCi78l2qhQMfVzjhhKhBDO6BJm6cgWNl77kzetj2A=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=p5cvMkYN6B1hp3UGm/gSecRsTemg+AMkulodcazBOadseiZ92zqTdk41wJPob8kQ6 7xkj3rp+a6j01fPvVAo5GSu9emLElCrHbJdSq719w0H+BJfS7OwPCdEPX4snw40oIz mQFgT+vPKu+ycyOQ1jyUeSHYV10F0FYUb7bC8neo= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1516825353; x=1516911753; i=@elandsys.com; bh=BCeCi78l2qhQMfVzjhhKhBDO6BJm6cgWNl77kzetj2A=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Sn85TKrl+PrVaeHj8j4Yhum6uKxuy3Z0sNwM+NCrkFgZTm/iU7O2WD7OBwSiGXtPu Me/8YV6SBkUHDmAM08QXq2EBViYCH+L3FUvivE1pDiHuyZlB8FlwLXwN7GLMQ/MxBX hTT5vXIfhXwMjJ1ZII6uVFxPUziYhGBiRx3jj8cw= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20180124115128.11862a60@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 12:17:58 -0800 To: Niels ten Oever , hrpc@irtf.org From: S Moonesamy Cc: Gisela Perez de Acha In-Reply-To: <20180124104203.GA4995@mir> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20180108132649.114ec2e0@elandnews.com> <20180123092518.GB913@mir> <6.2.5.6.2.20180123134445.13135aa0@elandnews.com> <20180124104203.GA4995@mir> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Comments on draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 20:22:49 -0000 Hi Niels, At 02:42 AM 24-01-2018, Niels ten Oever wrote: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_India I read the draft again. Section 5 is about "literature review". The references provided in response to my question are to two Wikipedia articles; the argument made by one of the authors was that there were many examples. In my opinion, the research done by the Research Group is somewhat on the low side. >Internet architecture. So that includes documents influencing and >describing the architecture, which includes protocols and RFCs. What does a mailing list have to do with Internet architecture? If I had to form an opinion from the responses which have been given so far, and assuming that the IRTF publication quality is similar to the quality of the other streams, I would say that the draft needs much more work before it could be considered for publication. Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Tue Jan 30 03:03:56 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDA6E12DA6F for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 03:03:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.909 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BPVcknAt2wbx for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 03:03:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8CA312D941 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 03:01:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id C0C14281E3A; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:01:06 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id BADFB281E8D; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:01:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (relay01.prive.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:15::11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4127281E3A; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:01:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.users.prive.nic.fr [10.10.86.133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0F416424E40; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:01:06 +0100 (CET) Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AA2DC401CC; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:01:06 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:01:06 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: avri doria Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180130110106.vxa7sygorvrhndag@nic.fr> References: <3b36b025-d6b5-6abb-323a-dbd6c61ba914@acm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3b36b025-d6b5-6abb-323a-dbd6c61ba914@acm.org> X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.3 X-Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-5-amd64 x86_64 X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.008593, version=1.2.2 X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2018.1.30.105416 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Anonymity, Human Rights and Internet Protocols X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:03:56 -0000 On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:15:12PM -0500, avri doria wrote a message of 11 lines which said: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity/ > > Questions: > > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? IMHO, yes, but I'm biased. > - Who is interested in working on it? I am :-) > - Are the authors willing to give up change control? Yes. > - What remains to be be done on this? Much more discussions, I believe. From nobody Tue Jan 30 03:28:47 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00525131B2B for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 03:28:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.909 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mM_kGyKba-sG for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 03:28:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BEC4131AD0 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 03:23:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id AE4C0282373; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:23:44 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id A84DA28244A; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:23:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (unknown [10.1.50.11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1411282373; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:23:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.users.prive.nic.fr [10.10.86.133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 946FB6427BE0; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:23:44 +0100 (CET) Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8D1CA401CC; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:23:44 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:23:44 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Andrew Sullivan Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180130112344.idnwt3n6xvtaos52@nic.fr> References: <21d44e51-ed5a-08ac-ab8e-712235e3c8bc@acm.org> <127d8627-ad2a-f7d2-c385-956999f0a9fd@derechosdigitales.org> <20180123105207.GE28814@mir> <20180124124125.GE4995@mir> <20180124194548.GA13745@anvilwalrusden.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20180124194548.GA13745@anvilwalrusden.com> X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.3 X-Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-5-amd64 x86_64 X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.200134, version=1.2.2 X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2018.1.30.111516 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Freedom of Association on the Internet X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:28:46 -0000 On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 02:45:56PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote a message of 87 lines which said: > "The Internet" is a noun more like "the traffic" than "the table": a > mass rather than count noun.[1] These two examples are emergent > things made up of many other kinds of behaviour, each contributing > to but not making up the whole. Nice explanations. I tend to agree, but: > But there's an important caveat: each network is operated > exclusively by its operators, and participates for locally-defined > benefit according to locally-defined needs and desires. Yes, this is how it works today, but: > If the Internet is made up entirely of ASes participating freely > with one another, and if each AS's participation is defined > according to locally-defined needs and desires, then it follows that > it is _impossible_ to "protect" the Internet in terms of users' > associational abilities. Hold on. Here, I disagree. Let's start with a practical issue: an operator (an AS) wants to filter 175.45.176.0/24. Today, he can do it *technically* (it is quite easy) and *legally* (her network, her rules, and, for this specific case, few people would complain). *But* if everyone started to do it, and to filter networks they don't like (or filtering TLDs they don't like in their DNS resolvers, as suggested in the email I attach, sent to an operations list), then we would have a problem. A minority of operators filtering 175.45.176.0/24, the Internet would still work and would still be "the Internet". A majority of operators filtering a lot of networks they don't like and, at a point, this would no longer be the Internet This is a case where quantitative changes bring qualitative changes: too much filtering and we would no longer have a global network. So, I claim that, despite that fact that each AS has the right to take decisions such as filtering, if everyone started to exercice this right fully, this would destroy the Internet. > • Claim that there is a social need that trumps the private > nature of the participating ASes. I agree. > • Work in somehow the always-tricky issue of collective rights and > obligations without individual obligation. Tricky, OK, but it already exists. See for instance the right to housing, which is mentioned in several texts . In a country like France, most of the homes and buildings are privately owned, yet there is a collective right to housing > • Define into existence some new network of last resort that has > the positive obligation to carry traffic when nobody else does. This is a possible solution. But we were talking of rights. Rights exist even when we don't have yet a solution to do it perfectly. Most human rights texts don't describe solutions because 1) we may have several possible solutions, all with pros and cons 2) texts should not limit imagination, we may invent new solutions. > It was the telephone network, with rights, obligations, and roles > carefully delineated by regulations and government-granted monopoly > rights. We can observe some of that in, for instance, the "last > mile" networks in many places. But I am pretty far from convinced > that any right to freedom of association would be made more > operative by reinventing the legal and regulatory regime that made > possible telco monopolies the world over; or by revivifying the > bureaucratic, government-and-insiders-only nature of international > telegraphy treaties. Well, if the choice is binary, complete freedom of rich private corporations *or* big bureaucratic governements, indeed, it is no fun. But I hope mankind may develop alternatives. From nobody Tue Jan 30 04:11:52 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0716131AE4 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 04:11:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.235 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IpKLmNaMUxIE for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 04:11:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0223.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.223]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B5DF12EA56 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 04:08:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE21C100E86C1 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:08:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6176726940646F7269612E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 2, 0, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, avri@acm.org, :, RULES_HIT:41:152:355:379:854:973:988:989:1260:1261:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1381:1437:1513:1515:1516:1518:1521:1534:1539:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:2689:2693:2895:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:4184:4250:4362:5007:6117:7652:7875:9010:9592:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12050:13069:13071:13172:13229:13311:13357:14180:14877:21060:21080:21324:21433:21627:30054:30090, 0, RBL:none, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, DomainCache:0, MSF:not bulk, SPF:, MSBL:0, DNSBL:none, Custom_rules:0:0:0, LFtime:2, LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: fowl07_f2cb1dbe270c X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1393 Received: from [192.168.1.109] (wsip-68-15-42-104.ri.ri.cox.net [68.15.42.104]) (Authenticated sender: avri@doria.org) by omf05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:08:24 +0000 (UTC) Reply-To: avri@acm.org To: hrpc@irtf.org From: avri doria Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 07:08:21 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 180129-2, 01/29/2018), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Archived-At: Subject: [hrpc] Poll of various draft & IETF101 X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:11:51 -0000 Hi, Going to give the collection of answers on drafts becoming RG draft another week or so, until 7 Feb, at which time I will summarize to the list.=C2=A0 Please think about answering the questions I sent out. Also time to collect ideas for the upcoming HRPC meeting.=C2=A0 In addition to the continuing discussion of what next, what else would people like to see? - Who has something they want to speak about - a draft or some other pape= r - Do we want to invite a speaker. - Also plan to include discussion of updated drafts and any new drafts. Which should we expect? Thanks avri - From nobody Tue Jan 30 04:47:09 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1001F12EAD7 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 04:47:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.908 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FAYnwhzMupvl for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 04:47:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B11112E894 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 04:47:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id CF6FA281AEC; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 13:47:02 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id C42E9281DCD; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 13:47:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (unknown [10.1.50.11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC0AD281AEC; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 13:47:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.users.prive.nic.fr [10.10.86.133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B611C642BE40; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 13:47:02 +0100 (CET) Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A6FE0401CE; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 13:47:02 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 13:47:02 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Andrew Sullivan Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180130124702.rjdhsget6wh53wm6@nic.fr> References: <21d44e51-ed5a-08ac-ab8e-712235e3c8bc@acm.org> <127d8627-ad2a-f7d2-c385-956999f0a9fd@derechosdigitales.org> <20180123105207.GE28814@mir> <20180124124125.GE4995@mir> <20180124194548.GA13745@anvilwalrusden.com> <20180130112344.idnwt3n6xvtaos52@nic.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="exirqldijv4oxymp" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180130112344.idnwt3n6xvtaos52@nic.fr> X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.3 X-Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-5-amd64 x86_64 X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000001, version=1.2.2 X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2018.1.30.123615 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Freedom of Association on the Internet X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:47:08 -0000 --exirqldijv4oxymp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:23:44PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote a message of 70 lines which said: > (or filtering TLDs they don't like in their DNS resolvers, as > suggested in the email I attach, sent to an operations list), Really attached, this time. --exirqldijv4oxymp Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: dns-operations-bounces@dns-oarc.net Received: from hebe.prod-int.prive.th3.nic.fr [10.1.81.80] by b12.tech.prive.nic.fr with IMAP (fetchmail-6.3.26) for (single-drop); Wed, 03 Jan 2018 22:06:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from hebe.prod-int.prive.th3.nic.fr (LHLO zimbra.afnic.fr) (10.1.81.80) by zimbra.afnic.fr with LMTP; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 22:04:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.afnic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E52F22D7D019 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 22:04:00 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.afnic.fr X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.913 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.913 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_FAIL=0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: zimbra.afnic.fr (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com Received: from zimbra.afnic.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.afnic.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IW3eqnJ3xF1p for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 22:03:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (relay01.prive.nic.fr [10.1.50.11]) by zimbra.afnic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE0EA2D7D013 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 22:03:59 +0100 (CET) Received: by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) id D5361642758A; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 22:03:59 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: bortzmeyer@nic.fr Received: from mx5.nic.fr (mx5.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:13]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEA6B6427580; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 22:03:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from mx5.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx5.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id CB1C6300154; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 22:03:59 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx5.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1137) id 13DF83002D1; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 22:03:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from ix1.dns-oarc.net (ix1.dns-oarc.net [IPv6:2620:ff:c000::198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx5.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE74B300154; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 22:03:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from ix1.dns-oarc.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ix1.dns-oarc.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4+deb7u1) with ESMTP id w03KYduX004764; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 20:36:54 GMT Received: from mail-ot0-x230.google.com (mail-ot0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::230]) by ix1.dns-oarc.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4+deb7u1) with ESMTP id w03KYWKr004756 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 20:34:37 GMT Received: by mail-ot0-x230.google.com with SMTP id w4so2273687otg.3 for ; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 12:34:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=q6AF+yTWQX61b2Cfvw8Qbn6g+Q25j+2VIFtDfttdCyc=; b=leP/rCK6gXcAwajDjKSDieg1c8+RoXbMAwMz9+7c9lnKhphOjKXD2B2kXZTSbemy9F feB6/7mke3RLBL/KIub9vtqCJeRkq/r7C2lfQp3Ss3LXURd+FKkneUNL7cF79n0UcPTG DToBLFUkYCf4tahWK7pfAKVTs282gq7D/bPcWK7CZ1W/nu8QBp0KdNRpXI2ifjb9fpX7 OOahVd1bXHN96CX45sNlIO0V5TnEqTCw3uGqe5wOyxUqxqmX/jO9P56MkGUq2T6M8lWO 46dVH+aYCsEFy807+UpWkn62npGb8pDqImyMszPuOjETevZsRFS08QwEiQuzqeHJ988Q yRwQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=q6AF+yTWQX61b2Cfvw8Qbn6g+Q25j+2VIFtDfttdCyc=; b=TPMs79tDVvzewECwPEyJ70+rmjTzt3ZCTmlR+8v+ca3oAweJifIoh1k0ZU/vIU00bm VIjP3/B88DB6ZrKNhBvgv4sb4mjtMa+zpk4B57smki9PT0d2meFHM4kOT1UPidJhXhba R+TAfDYfDfB0x1C7c91Hvpkh8xXF8WXT08yD/esniswxswwpbhSkW+kbwaUWiE1ttw4X We8VgX0/zKDSIQwt1+3yJcs3A+bY/QgYHHog3gMMaP07rrHRW7B9W0MJ63pPxTd8c7Nf 7R+q4Aae9UkN+s4qTp5O8dyBwcIxA737rgN7iJCJCNX3GAeffRDC93/ojXfFtisnTaxE Z+zg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJPoMnmSTluOGheqOyjXyUyZhVtpyPlxz3pBmzQC5ssQ8nIjma9 25gZ7izXzTYHWyZL7R9+twYNfA7pnIb/SV3ObJM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovKScjPM5+nF9rvengSYMYSB8UQEQmhLyyyNHzX2kua7DrUPdy3ZlBOTE38r0Vz3HMvVaIdJ+SWStJ3klC9CXY= X-Received: by 10.157.52.246 with SMTP id t51mr1432130otd.169.1515011671979; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 12:34:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.157.49.87 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 12:34:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5A4D37ED.2040508@redbarn.org> References: <20180103014145.dccd099a1dc97ff22f8f1777f630e19b.3671dd495d.wbe@email07.godaddy.com> <2AB097BD-E59F-4670-97FA-D6FB6E6706A1@sentaidigital.com> <23117.1006.457734.455722@tale.kendall.corp.akamai.com> <5A4D37ED.2040508@redbarn.org> Old-From: Phillip Hallam-Baker Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:34:31 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: bGrJfl8_Nc1jHcXCk1MEmNd1utQ Message-ID: To: Paul Vixie Authentication-Results: ix1.dns-oarc.net; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=leP/rCK6 Authentication-Results: ix1.dns-oarc.net; dmarc=none header.from=hallambaker.com Authentication-Results: ix1.dns-oarc.net; dmarc=none header.from=hallambaker.com Old-Subject: Re: [dns-operations] anti-business hippies (Re: the real reason for ICANN's gTLD expansion seems to be...) X-BeenThere: dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS Operations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: DNS Operations List Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4897710035489171039==" Errors-To: dns-operations-bounces@dns-oarc.net Sender: "dns-operations" X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2018.1.3.205416 X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIIII, Probability=8%, Report=' HTML_NO_HTTP 0.1, BODYTEXTH_SIZE_10000_LESS 0, BODYTEXTH_SIZE_3000_MORE 0, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_400_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, DKIM_SIGNATURE 0, IN_REP_TO 0, LEGITIMATE_SIGNS 0, MSG_THREAD 0, REFERENCES 0, WEBMAIL_SOURCE 0, __ANY_URI 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CC_NAME 0, __CC_NAME_DIFF_FROM_ACC 0, __CC_REAL_NAMES 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_MIXED 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __FRAUD_BADTHINGS 0, __FRAUD_MONEY_CURRENCY 0, __FRAUD_MONEY_CURRENCY_DOLLAR 0, __HAS_CC_HDR 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_HTML 0, __HAS_LIST_HEADER 0, __HAS_LIST_HELP 0, __HAS_LIST_ID 0, __HAS_LIST_SUBSCRIBE 0, __HAS_LIST_UNSUBSCRIBE 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HTML_AHREF_TAG 0, __HTML_TAG_DIV 0, __HTTPS_URI 0, __IN_REP_TO 0, __MIME_HTML 0, __MIME_TEXT_H 0, __MIME_TEXT_H1 0, __MIME_TEXT_H2 0, __MIME_TEXT_P 0, __MIME_TEXT_P1 0, __MIME_TEXT_P2 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MULTIPLE_URI_TEXT 0, __OEM_PRICE 0, __PHISH_SPEAR_HTTP_RECEIVED 0, __RCVD_GOOGLE_IPV6 0, __REFERENCES 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __STOCK_PHRASE_6 0, __STOCK_PHRASE_7 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NAME 0, __TO_NAME_DIFF_FROM_ACC 0, __TO_REAL_NAMES 0, __URI_IN_BODY 0, __URI_NOT_IMG 0, __URI_NO_WWW 0, __URI_NS , __URI_WITHOUT_PATH 0, __URI_WITH_PATH 0, __YOUTUBE_RCVD 0' X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.157363, version=1.2.4 Old-Subject: Re: [dns-operations] anti-business hippies (Re: the real reason for ICANN's gTLD expansion seems to be...) From: Phillip Hallam-Baker Subject: Re: anti-business hippies (Re: the real reason for ICANN's gTLD expansion seems to be...) --===============4897710035489171039== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113e141889fefd0561e52406" --001a113e141889fefd0561e52406 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > David C Lawrence wrote: > >> Kevin Murphy wrote: >> >>> Has the amount of abuse on the internet gone up since the >>>> introduction of new gTLDs? There must be data on this. >>>> >>> >> John Franklin wrote: >> >>> How would you quantify that? I can see new gTLDs creating new >>> portals on the internet for bad actors, but I would expect the >>> number of said bad actors behind them to remain relatively stable. >>> >> >> I suspect that was Kevin's point, trying to suss out whether gTLD >> expansion is in any way a part of making things worse, or essentially >> neutral. >> > > i'm not sure why i would care. whether or not gtld-induced badness is par= t > of a zero sum game is irrelevant. if there is net new badness, i don't li= ke > it. if it allowed some badness to move here from elsewhere, i don't like > that either. =E2=80=8BThere is one difference. If the badness has moved rather than this= being new badness, we can avoid the problem entirely by blocking the new gTLDs entirely.=E2=80=8B I have yet to hear one good reason for supporting resolution of the new gTLDs. Is ICANN sharing any of the rent they are extracting with me? No. Is there any resource that is not malicious of significance on a gTLD? Not that I am aware. =E2=80=8BBlack hole rout 'em till they give the community a good reason to = exist. gTLDs should cost $15/yr and $1=E2=80=8B/yr of that go to supporting a multi-registry back end (without perpetual renewal clauses) to provide scaling. Domain suffixes would eventually wither away and die the death they richly deserve. For a little while, people would have to type 'www.microsoft' to get where they want to go because the string 'microsoft' would not be assumed to be a search keyword. But that would go away over time. Want to get to the mail server? There's an SRV for that. Want the time service? There's an SRV for that. Outside large hierarchical institutions like MIT, GE, etc., the only application protocols that would end up using subdomains is SSH and their ilk which are the only application protocols that properly connects to a host as opposed to a service. =E2=80=8BThe main obstacle to making it happen is oddly enough BitCoin beca= use the obvious way to make an open gTLD registry work is with a notary log at the heart of it. Problem being that when the BitCoin =E2=80=8Bbubble bursts it = is almost certain to take anything blockchain down with it. Just like the South Sea bubble killed the notion of joint stock companies for a century. --001a113e141889fefd0561e52406 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Ja= n 3, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:


David C Lawrence wrote:
Kevin Murphy wrote:
Has the amount of abuse on the internet gone up since the
introduction of new gTLDs? There must be data on this.

John Franklin wrote:
How would you quantify that?=C2=A0 I can see new gTLDs creating new
portals on the internet for bad actors, but I would expect the
number of said bad actors behind them to remain relatively stable.

I suspect that was Kevin's point, trying to suss out whether gTLD
expansion is in any way a part of making things worse, or essentially
neutral.

 i'm not sure why i would care. whether or not gtld-induced badness is p= art of a zero sum game is irrelevant. if there is net new badness, i don= 9;t like it. if it allowed some badness to move here from elsewhere, i don&= #39;t like that either.


=E2=80=8BThere is one di= fference. If the badness has moved rather than this being new badness, we c= an avoid the problem entirely by blocking the new gTLDs entirely.=E2=80=8B<= /div>

I have yet to hear one go= od reason for supporting resolution of the new gTLDs.=C2=A0

Is ICANN sharing any of the rent they ar= e extracting with me? No.=C2=A0

Is there any resource that is not malicious of significance on a gTL= D? Not that I am aware.

= =E2=80=8BBlack hole rout 'em till they give the community a good reason= to exist.

=
gTLDs should c= ost $15/yr and $1=E2=80=8B/yr of that go to supporting a multi-registry bac= k end (without perpetual renewal clauses) to provide scaling. Domain suffix= es would eventually wither away and die the death they richly deserve.

For a little while, people wo= uld have to type 'www.microsoft' to get where they want to go becau= se the string 'microsoft' would not be assumed to be a search keywo= rd. But that would go away over time.

Want to get to the mail server? There's an SRV for that. W= ant the time service? There's an SRV for that.

Outside large hierarchical institutions like MIT,= GE, etc., the only application protocols that would end up using subdomain= s is SSH and their ilk which are the only application protocols that proper= ly connects to a host as opposed to a service.


=E2=80=8BThe main = obstacle to making it happen is oddly enough BitCoin because the obvious wa= y to make an open gTLD registry work is with a notary log at the heart of i= t. Problem being that when the BitCoin =E2=80=8Bbubble bursts it is almost = certain to take anything blockchain down with it. Just like the South Sea b= ubble killed the notion of joint stock companies for a century.
=
--001a113e141889fefd0561e52406-- --===============4897710035489171039== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-operations mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations --===============4897710035489171039==-- --exirqldijv4oxymp-- From nobody Tue Jan 30 06:27:57 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EC5112EBA3 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 06:27:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.909 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qWNpQqHdF1Y9 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 06:27:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B5E712EB7E for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 06:27:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B4CC281744; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:27:31 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id 6574F28178D; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:27:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (relay01.prive.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:15::11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E674281744; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:27:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.users.prive.nic.fr [10.10.86.133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B43F663EBE0; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:27:31 +0100 (CET) Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 52439401CE; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:27:31 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:27:31 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Melinda Shore Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180130142731.r4avtmbq33vcs7mf@nic.fr> References: <20180118094058.xf6amdl3saumvrjr@sources.org> <20180123093625.GF913@mir> <20180124105314.GD4995@mir> <20180124172059.GA13067@mx4.yitter.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.3 X-Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-5-amd64 x86_64 X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.008346, version=1.2.2 X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2018.1.30.141516 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] About draft-harkins-tls-dragonfly X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:27:55 -0000 On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 09:35:08AM -0900, Melinda Shore 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). From nobody Tue Jan 30 06:50:48 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 727E112D779 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 06:50:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.909 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sSb7mc13Anjr for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 06:50:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5ADF12EB60 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 06:45:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 42C482819B4; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:45:27 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id 3CF19281A19; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:45:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (relay01.prive.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:15::11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 361E72819B4; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:45:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.tech.ipv6.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:7::86:133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 336496423521; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:45:27 +0100 (CET) Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2E2C3401CE; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:45:27 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:45:27 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: avri doria Cc: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180130144527.gltrb6wdrntzynef@nic.fr> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.3 X-Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-5-amd64 x86_64 X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.049154, version=1.2.2 X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2018.1.30.143916 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Guidelines for Human Rights Protocol Considerations X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:50:47 -0000 On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:15:46PM -0500, avri doria wrote a message of 11 lines which said: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines/ > > Questions: > > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? IMHO, yes (after all, it is an extract from RFC 8280). > - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the > group consensus for inclusion at the moment? No > - Who is interested in working on it? Me > - What remains to be be done on this? Two or three HR analyzes of actual drafts, based on this document, to see how it works. From nobody Tue Jan 30 06:53:41 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B01012FAEC for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 06:53:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.909 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OPBRvOrxVnN6 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 06:53:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20E9A131A4F for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 06:49:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id AD245281AAD; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:49:26 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id A6DCB281B2C; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:49:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (relay01.prive.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:15::11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A06C4281AAD; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:49:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.tech.ipv6.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:7::86:133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D5AC6423521; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:49:26 +0100 (CET) Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 90059401CE; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:49:26 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:49:26 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Niels ten Oever Cc: avri doria , hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180130144926.wstd5la4cgzpg7ks@nic.fr> References: <20180123105232.GF28814@mir> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180123105232.GF28814@mir> X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.3 X-Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-5-amd64 x86_64 X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.263712, version=1.2.2 X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2018.1.30.143916 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Unrequested Communications X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:53:40 -0000 On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:52:32AM +0100, Niels ten Oever wrote a message of 93 lines which said: > > - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? > > > > No, because the doc is discontinued. For reference, see From nobody Tue Jan 30 06:54:28 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACF36131B07 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 06:54:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zkIp6NNw9fio for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 06:54:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D8001318A1 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 06:50:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 9D5B4281AAD; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:50:17 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id 96C18281B2C; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:50:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (relay01.prive.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:15::11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 902B6281AAD; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:50:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.tech.ipv6.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:7::86:133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CE856424E40; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:50:17 +0100 (CET) Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 88387401CE; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:50:17 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:50:17 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Shivan Cc: avri@acm.org, Hrpc Message-ID: <20180130145017.xokjsgbr7eghfwgd@nic.fr> References: <4ac916b1-bfc9-e5f7-fbc7-456c3c56dfa2@acm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.3 X-Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-5-amd64 x86_64 X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.003006, version=1.2.2 X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2018.1.30.143916 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Implementation Report for HTTP Status Code 451 (RFC 7725) X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:54:26 -0000 On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 01:51:21PM -0500, Shivan wrote a message of 109 lines which said: > I'm still working on this, but would be willing to defer control to > the RG if people are interested in contributing In november, it seems were was a (rough) consensus to defer to the HTTP working group all drafts about 451? From nobody Tue Jan 30 07:24:20 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B4721318EF for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 07:24:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=Kj/OdVRQ; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=Hi+yjPE7 Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y1PULpvnlH5o for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 07:24:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92E9A1318DE for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 07:22:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AA0EBE072 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:21:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1517325711; bh=UczOz62WUARFC2L2Sepe5B08zRoVc/Oz3OJ8Ydrjf4w=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Kj/OdVRQVYNXMsKCuEmmnOdEnSC6n9LmjdZmzwacRXngM46vKemFY87G/Yw1J6iXn UYz4PfQd0vALy5NvM2kY/LIa004OqWayABpUfuoTw8YS/v2DYkTbdQsfVVfhO0nx6W JgTuK6gJ/vvBlBZHn31uQ5q5ZH7aKNINQimoYDOA= X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nT26xVeiHr20 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:21:49 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:21:47 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1517325709; bh=UczOz62WUARFC2L2Sepe5B08zRoVc/Oz3OJ8Ydrjf4w=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Hi+yjPE7yhuBMZJELishAhvHrDyGbZNziZi1fWDZ3CjphnMkyHIOOrDYO2KAONpXE xdL3oxdFpjiXRUr/9NSpyhrPcK26onhndR13pNjEuUHqQntw8Gvcn26v/EQLmYaifL +fhRwBNuBblJPaqeoxScvXoHv2eDHDDNbxq2EQQY= From: Andrew Sullivan To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <20180130152147.GD18485@mx4.yitter.info> References: <21d44e51-ed5a-08ac-ab8e-712235e3c8bc@acm.org> <127d8627-ad2a-f7d2-c385-956999f0a9fd@derechosdigitales.org> <20180123105207.GE28814@mir> <20180124124125.GE4995@mir> <20180124194548.GA13745@anvilwalrusden.com> <20180130112344.idnwt3n6xvtaos52@nic.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20180130112344.idnwt3n6xvtaos52@nic.fr> Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Freedom of Association on the Internet X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:24:19 -0000 On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:23:44PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > Hold on. Here, I disagree. Let's start with a practical issue: an > operator (an AS) wants to filter 175.45.176.0/24. Today, he can do it > *technically* (it is quite easy) and *legally* (her network, her > rules, and, for this specific case, few people would complain). Yes. > *But* if everyone started to do it, and to filter networks they don't > like (or filtering TLDs they don't like in their DNS resolvers, as > suggested in the email I attach, sent to an operations list), then we > would have a problem. A minority of operators filtering > 175.45.176.0/24, the Internet would still work and would still be "the > Internet". A majority of operators filtering a lot of networks they > don't like and, at a point, this would no longer be the Internet > This is a case > where quantitative changes bring qualitative changes: too much > filtering and we would no longer have a global network. Quite correct. The logic that maintains the Internet working is, in that sense, uncomfortably close to the logic of nuclear deterrence. This is true in two ways. First, the reason anyone participates in internetworking is because each gets the positive benefit of the internetworking, and needs to participate to get that benefit (so there's a virtuous circle). Second, all need to rely on everyone else's similar participation for the effect to work. But this can turn into a vicious circle quite easily, and if it does we will indeed lose the Internet. That is why power-flexing of the "filter $thing" is so harmful, and why working out legitimacy is a necessary and ongoing political process. > So, I claim that, despite that fact that each AS has the right to take > decisions such as filtering, if everyone started to exercice this > right fully, this would destroy the Internet. It would, yes. But that cannot create a positive obligation to maintain the Internet, or to claim that others' right to association is so great that I cannot disassociate from them. > > • Work in somehow the always-tricky issue of collective rights and > > obligations without individual obligation. > > Tricky, OK, but it already exists. See for instance the right to > housing, which is mentioned in several texts > . In a country like > France, most of the homes and buildings are privately owned, yet there > is a collective right to housing > > That doesn't sound like a collective right, but an individual right to housing. The UDHR certainly makes it an individual right. The idea here is that there is a collective right of all to Internet access -- that is, "the association" has a right -- without any particular individual getting an individual right to it. So the member of the collective class gets the right insofar as s/he is a member and otherwise does not have the right. In the case of the Internet, I think it would be either incoherent or else would be making a distinction without any difference, since the practical effect of having an individual right or a right as part of the set of one's associations online would be identical. > > • Define into existence some new network of last resort that has > > the positive obligation to carry traffic when nobody else does. > > This is a possible solution. But we were talking of rights. Rights > exist even when we don't have yet a solution to do it perfectly. Some people insist that, yes. The point is, however, that if there is a positive right it is at least problematic if there is no practical way to carry it out. > Well, if the choice is binary, complete freedom of rich private > corporations *or* big bureaucratic governements, indeed, it is no > fun. But I hope mankind may develop alternatives. I hope so too. But I also don't know how it helps us to assert that there is a "right" here that needs addressing. I think it is good to do because it is good for the network: it is in the ethics of the network, not the rights of the humans, that we see that more connection is necessarily good. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From nobody Tue Jan 30 20:41:18 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6D34131524 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 20:41:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DqA0IRhxvP4F for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 20:41:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf0-x234.google.com (mail-lf0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D54E8131547 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 20:41:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf0-x234.google.com with SMTP id a204so18708827lfa.2 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 20:41:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=OJlatil3RzCtkcgbN4zHUCLEFO87FPf6mClbB07Xf+o=; b=XvsKvYUavrJDn5kduSYgLhlkHpbVvGsQ1cD9x19OdCO/MjIIs5VnMwTWN+71Il3icT am+KjElubC0mNdrcVfLCL6u8cUl063AhRSIA6as7LETphGyTQy3r27Z9dNZBDvbJA5hB X2jiVvEMyxcR4wn2Oh73TJzqKLfxf2FdDzDMa3v6jxAf6IWmc+SoEsCG24Iz7WTaG8lR NE7eiZ2R8WJLcGrfEaaHU7sltnM3j6hOXHBKNvEIVbvP8lWoQN9blCDpjhuU8gI69E8j RsnSFbsSr8vA2vHK9p0lSx1SdsybUPhp0Q7XzQoC8tIeGNS4cKVQftJkZZYt2ZB3niqZ 7kNA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OJlatil3RzCtkcgbN4zHUCLEFO87FPf6mClbB07Xf+o=; b=FENOgI1mW80Fqwrm84Gg5hBPFyyJFyRC+ts3cGB/BHdhOkM4LeVR77/6gGmPbd1OKa DCcW3HQKO5RMlUac1iFc7G9hacwiQSuVxgwC7kOcyxrGxmGpUdLjxtur3N+qIRdtVzty rEZpRnTFbWCpv1bjoJmdocy7OCc+85yQ1UPbPkMRvhKqJVf/DVvnjBUjI3TkE4cE3wzk JavT4FB0jpTb2aL4i3ehec0Fjv071lDpQ8E5ax21JwQao5hDxi973+mElN9Yuq8QZEST 3i3eCiblb1cb2yTot8npGPQkKaDuq4hLO+/7hfPfQ0hb0olWkmq1bO5pHNt7A5t34kvL nBug== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfbaMkm/Oikrmw3SxUbmvbRwtwq/HqFl6aydJBmY7MXa9V6PEmo g2yBBfO8MTcNdz8KofXbDFN5bzor3fTPXdDK5AE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226MHJ0U/ufcvtX8HHep7/7A5EA/8mjR+sOhr7Xs5P8WEvVsDnPndsAs5hm9T7u7JnYWvtJAAbah9DlRKRv9vuU= X-Received: by 10.25.162.72 with SMTP id l69mr18469614lfe.38.1517373667050; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 20:41:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.46.36.15 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 20:40:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20180130145017.xokjsgbr7eghfwgd@nic.fr> References: <4ac916b1-bfc9-e5f7-fbc7-456c3c56dfa2@acm.org> <20180130145017.xokjsgbr7eghfwgd@nic.fr> From: Shivan Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 23:40:26 -0500 Message-ID: To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Cc: Avri Doria , Hrpc Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11401c906a889e05640b1680" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Implementation Report for HTTP Status Code 451 (RFC 7725) X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 04:41:17 -0000 --001a11401c906a889e05640b1680 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I doubt HTTP working group will adopt this draft. The current plan was for it to be worked on as an individual contribution with the goal of it being published as an informational RFC. On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 01:51:21PM -0500, > Shivan wrote > a message of 109 lines which said: > > > I'm still working on this, but would be willing to defer control to > > the RG if people are interested in contributing > > In november, it seems were was a (rough) consensus to defer to the > HTTP working group all drafts about 451? > --001a11401c906a889e05640b1680 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I doubt HTTP working group will adopt = this draft. The current plan was for it to be worked on as an individual co= ntribution with the goal of it being published as an informational RFC.

On Tue, J= an 30, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 01:5= 1:21PM -0500,
=C2=A0Shivan <shivankaul.19= 93@gmail.com> wrote
=C2=A0a message of 109 lines which said:

> I'm still working on this, but would be willing to defer control t= o
> the RG if people are interested in contributing

In november, it seems were was a (rough) consensus to defer to the HTTP working group all drafts about 451?

--001a11401c906a889e05640b1680-- From nobody Wed Jan 31 00:18:28 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F134131984 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 00:18:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yTsOblbBftsq for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 00:18:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E562F1316DC for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 00:15:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4328; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1517386540; x=1518596140; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=UNhi/cRSBNGo7DF+H2n21YzKs1CFJfZgLe0jqk7W/UQ=; b=WJa9zpX2dXTFyt1nLMY3PsZHXH932wAtQfULTWg0ZEKJWrBy/x55JPZH avomCV3XA6FQ50QDVR0XQ0UMcxN/yxRIPeJqwmdZ2FGlGEn13TJnOtV5Q Z6kdtCzQTRM/7667MmPIjQrjGXQitCTbU5Cp5+CazilRaZNnCpVXRzFzX 0=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CTAQBSenFa/xbLJq1bGQEBAQECAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEIAQEBAYUehAiLGI9TJ5dbggIHA4U2AwICgyIUAQEBAQEBAQECayiFJAEEASN?= =?us-ascii?q?bCwsONAICVwYBDAgBAYopCKc5gieKYwEBAQEBAQQBAQEBAQEBEg+EW4V9DIFrg?= =?us-ascii?q?Q6EZiCDM4JlBaQZhGGCMo5WjDCHfJdogTw2IoFQMxoIGxWCaIJUHIIHQI0bAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?B?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.46,438,1511827200"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="1761899" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 Jan 2018 08:15:36 +0000 Received: from [10.61.243.57] ([10.61.243.57]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0V8FZ0U028488; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 08:15:36 GMT To: Andrew Sullivan , hrpc@irtf.org References: <21d44e51-ed5a-08ac-ab8e-712235e3c8bc@acm.org> <127d8627-ad2a-f7d2-c385-956999f0a9fd@derechosdigitales.org> <20180123105207.GE28814@mir> <20180124124125.GE4995@mir> <20180124194548.GA13745@anvilwalrusden.com> <20180130112344.idnwt3n6xvtaos52@nic.fr> <20180130152147.GD18485@mx4.yitter.info> From: Eliot Lear Message-ID: <4e8bb3b8-8573-27c8-f6f8-17082752ed6c@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 09:15:35 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180130152147.GD18485@mx4.yitter.info> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qeLB9M0vGSAgb6sohdrEWI8CpSPtSKLSm" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Freedom of Association on the Internet X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 08:18:26 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --qeLB9M0vGSAgb6sohdrEWI8CpSPtSKLSm Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="2ICkXem2vl3LACSKQA4fui8I9cUHb2T4m"; protected-headers="v1" From: Eliot Lear To: Andrew Sullivan , hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <4e8bb3b8-8573-27c8-f6f8-17082752ed6c@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [hrpc] Freedom of Association on the Internet References: <21d44e51-ed5a-08ac-ab8e-712235e3c8bc@acm.org> <127d8627-ad2a-f7d2-c385-956999f0a9fd@derechosdigitales.org> <20180123105207.GE28814@mir> <20180124124125.GE4995@mir> <20180124194548.GA13745@anvilwalrusden.com> <20180130112344.idnwt3n6xvtaos52@nic.fr> <20180130152147.GD18485@mx4.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20180130152147.GD18485@mx4.yitter.info> --2ICkXem2vl3LACSKQA4fui8I9cUHb2T4m Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US Hi Andrew, > Quite correct. The logic that maintains the Internet working is, in > that sense, uncomfortably close to the logic of nuclear deterrence. > This is true in two ways. First, the reason anyone participates in > internetworking is because each gets the positive benefit of the > internetworking, and needs to participate to get that benefit (so > there's a virtuous circle). Second, all need to rely on everyone > else's similar participation for the effect to work. But this can > turn into a vicious circle quite easily, and if it does we will indeed > lose the Internet. That is why power-flexing of the "filter $thing" > is so harmful, and why working out legitimacy is a necessary and > ongoing political process. I would suggest that assertions around a potential vicious cycle are good research questions.=C2=A0 Although we have a fair amount of understanding of positive network effects, I don't know of much practical examination of negative ones.=C2=A0 There may be some interesting examples to study, however.=C2=A0 One of th= ose would be AOL's instance message service, or perhaps Prodigy.=C2=A0 In tho= se cases there was a better mouse trap, unlike what we are discussing here.=C2=A0 To be sure, a government could impose sufficient constraints = that electronic communication is altogether prohibited or highly restricted, as has happened in certain countries.=C2=A0 But then there is all that sp= ace in between no filtering and no communication.=C2=A0 I hazard a guess that= whatever function one might attempt to construct around that space would not be linear, but really therein lies the research question. A good case might also be The Great Firewall of China (the elephant in the room in this discussion).=C2=A0 Is it in fact having an effect?=C2=A0= My casual observation, and again I could be wrong, is that the Chinese manage it in such a way as to not substantially harm the network effect.=C2=A0 Similarly, there are other more barriers that may have stro= nger effects, such as language barriers.=C2=A0 Distinguishing between the two = is itself an interesting question.=C2=A0 Even characterizing the natural ver= sus government-imposed barriers might be an interesting area to delve. Is this strictly speaking a human rights issue?=C2=A0 Only in as much as = the network itself is said to be a societal benefit, and thereby its breakdown would be some form of harm.=C2=A0 I leave it to you philosopher= s to work that out. Eliot --2ICkXem2vl3LACSKQA4fui8I9cUHb2T4m-- --qeLB9M0vGSAgb6sohdrEWI8CpSPtSKLSm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAlpxeycACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejMtLwf/Qe4xP1bYTQSuYXeHmTvUjG6OEsHYUwPLnK9OUE9Ehv1oFAicHzenl8IN aaXjgrwHvSdPpnYwRuG78biypqJB9StAlEawkb14d4WbwMI61HxSIm+qE4crwvzy JXI7Z/OZiu52ZKbPPmZRm5i+OkNZ8p1fBRjBCBQB5c2fLYQUSDY815u0tkv+70Y0 dkWN1iM6TWDPKfRpE9otBHrP4mKwJQXqNXSK85mwb/woV7DsvqG42KAMmrJOU7EQ +h1boPN5WhwwEoJf6v9LucIOqR8qM5/avM6raQ3NxB1PMg2vf22J1pUOQt8JhD95 HseUZ7u6L0Api4idXdzbMeU5anKvQA== =xl4Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qeLB9M0vGSAgb6sohdrEWI8CpSPtSKLSm-- From nobody Wed Jan 31 12:34:27 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F24DF12FA7B for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 12:34:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=derechosdigitales.org header.b=F1zvvfZS; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=k1vvX/2/ Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aGRpo66X1-jw for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 12:34:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 757C512FA85 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 12:34:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CCE420ABC for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 15:34:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 31 Jan 2018 15:34:23 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= derechosdigitales.org; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=TQUTJRb1p5EwFS1yv+cpxffLH86xr Zmb8L0yIifvKG8=; b=F1zvvfZSph3jbIYp7GjX2nnw7ycMcoMRlZOoFhp+NIHik XgOR1pph2TMO88tnqL+ZquLV0gIT1ToAGXQZLyxTjwh23bd3qjnxCFJ1v5o9sfVM cM194K0wdmjazRzGapSyYhfLMjzKUrZIWvgtoh4ADHI/CRgF2VZfEvHb5u6TLNyo wF6ZwAJTGGvxIwOHNS76mo2S+uQ+QsdBVKIu15/PXoB9D5xldl9cJx/pJJPnnWJd IJUH0gAxIuvxuc0Lol3rhmPRPami8YKow0kLAhZuq2EEiZWZ8rXVUD6eJNEYKXuN zUtcpBKJSn3aQTxMDo96SA+q8QBi4IJAB1+Q9J6Yw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=TQUTJRb1p5EwFS1yv+cpxffLH86xr Zmb8L0yIifvKG8=; b=k1vvX/2/SxOMJ8hujcR+igSr8bQJDZtUENsILtfvJGKLR AQjXRVnyL5OeYgo83JdzmxIs3PGmUWaplx530P4IOmETbS7H1Bpdm8XD/kCLl4Rj fhp5sbjTbbz+ASFwzvUAOqnuBR+47/9Q0LG4m3I1qN8Yjoks3RPzNtrBW9mxcoWC DPRkToStk8oUHxFCEqkWibf1t26M8lVBCEM6R3t3vDmhmeGAVmv6LSUsRyjHZMMX vgfZYmuPbV90N8gfd4DRjdd5Wd+8YyePrRfJ9ZCH9l/zijbx8huAVW3S4aCouU8Y KZPb6apmXupFQiiz4gVHlmbukymZLozZPr1N3oMPA== X-ME-Sender: Received: from Giselas-MacBook-Air-6.local (unknown [189.207.174.197]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 09B857E6BC for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 15:34:22 -0500 (EST) To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <21d44e51-ed5a-08ac-ab8e-712235e3c8bc@acm.org> <127d8627-ad2a-f7d2-c385-956999f0a9fd@derechosdigitales.org> <20180123105207.GE28814@mir> <20180124124125.GE4995@mir> <20180124194548.GA13745@anvilwalrusden.com> <20180130112344.idnwt3n6xvtaos52@nic.fr> <20180130152147.GD18485@mx4.yitter.info> <4e8bb3b8-8573-27c8-f6f8-17082752ed6c@cisco.com> From: Gisela Perez de Acha Message-ID: <54b47b5f-87e1-3170-2f05-27ee6d880227@derechosdigitales.org> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:34:18 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4e8bb3b8-8573-27c8-f6f8-17082752ed6c@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="lAuA2HLkWzOwVfI9GiItz6elpEaITQSZA" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Freedom of Association on the Internet X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 20:34:27 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --lAuA2HLkWzOwVfI9GiItz6elpEaITQSZA Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="XjKnxG9YJ0fIyT8J6UZIvSL2phJtG95Xy"; protected-headers="v1" From: Gisela Perez de Acha To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: <54b47b5f-87e1-3170-2f05-27ee6d880227@derechosdigitales.org> Subject: Re: [hrpc] Freedom of Association on the Internet References: <21d44e51-ed5a-08ac-ab8e-712235e3c8bc@acm.org> <127d8627-ad2a-f7d2-c385-956999f0a9fd@derechosdigitales.org> <20180123105207.GE28814@mir> <20180124124125.GE4995@mir> <20180124194548.GA13745@anvilwalrusden.com> <20180130112344.idnwt3n6xvtaos52@nic.fr> <20180130152147.GD18485@mx4.yitter.info> <4e8bb3b8-8573-27c8-f6f8-17082752ed6c@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4e8bb3b8-8573-27c8-f6f8-17082752ed6c@cisco.com> --XjKnxG9YJ0fIyT8J6UZIvSL2phJtG95Xy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: es-ES Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello everyone, sorry for the delay in my answer but I've been putting all of your wonderful comments together in order to see the entire picture of disagreements and concerns. I would address each point separately, but I think it makes more sense to do so in the actual document. So, my two general comments are the following: 1) After reading all of you, I agree that our argument about Internet =3D= association is rather flawed. It might be mere wording because I think that ultimately on the substancial issue, Niels and I agree with all of you. Let us figure it out how to fix this so that all our ideas and concerns are properly reflected 2) Andrew: the division between positive/negative rights has been left behind for almost a decade now in human rights law theory and practice. Traditionally, civil and political rights were deemed as "negative obligations" for the State (mainly respecting, not interfering) whereas economical, social and cultural rights were "positive obligations" (fostering, paying, etc). Now we understand that freedom of expression should be respected by states, but also fostered in positive ways. Still, it's useful to think about this in the draft itself. Thanks to all for the engagement and comments! This has been wonderful. We will do our best to make a good draft for the next round ;) Cheers and have a wonderful rest of the week, Gisela --XjKnxG9YJ0fIyT8J6UZIvSL2phJtG95Xy-- --lAuA2HLkWzOwVfI9GiItz6elpEaITQSZA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJacihQAAoJEK3mymyvegy4E7AQAK9QJ/iIV48oI4w6KhUSyoD7 94hr7kv1hjrrpi83xWAoYy1EIV8ySfmMKJ9nwtoAJIPwi5GjixNLgUWOa+uA4rUS ORTg9ycJ1L5lSN8EwrZJ/bVk0SSk5FxngX0qe5R0pxlut5EoKUkiGhzbRPw/b9Fu J/d+DnbHdXH6yP4veT+fwecsy0lcUq91JuuNAiZ40B4up2C0jWy2NnmLn0b8Jdo5 k/JHNCzeXYa7UuelUCZQYZky4RMnjGuGTmAuBm6hjc+bddxIFagoBNv4nkAwoMEK y87lqojVBfR6x5fUfpJPZ8+5nT1kPtCBKuz07assoSaO7/i8DsPADrU53g7ai5gQ hrzaH/84lwTwQJgEeQtX6CnJt1LmbtJLzkmS7QjFmTx5D4WbFjQUJIpkDr4Q2CyM IZiQEkTDpQcE/kMayF01MiDCk58YWfGVtLpsClDJhXj4sNqw/Zt0cIvFCwA/xoU0 P6ddOgF5Uf1wR82zm8oiUwhUBwrVjE0udmh/PF/KzBH793xQ9IoGRR27yY3sJpM6 15Ma1hwsg2yp2HtLWrhX8wAOzQSyRDmyC4Kh7HSRV+/s0yeXcojCcl7xvEGKbG3E 4wlTtgFpjR7hKYs1ypeSVRpu+tCcny9h5dy8axfSppnhSvHE/bwzj5EUII+FBa8v w0wP3SlcDUeVkW4+nd/4 =gouT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --lAuA2HLkWzOwVfI9GiItz6elpEaITQSZA-- From nobody Wed Jan 31 22:34:54 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E422512762F for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 22:34:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fO3ZpyY1pWP0 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 22:34:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5ED8D127735 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 22:34:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eh8SO-0007LP-7d for hrpc@irtf.org; Thu, 01 Feb 2018 07:34:48 +0100 To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <3b36b025-d6b5-6abb-323a-dbd6c61ba914@acm.org> <20180130110106.vxa7sygorvrhndag@nic.fr> From: Mallory Knodel Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:34:45 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180130110106.vxa7sygorvrhndag@nic.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: e462de357cb394d64966911c06262bc8 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Anonymity, Human Rights and Internet Protocols X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 06:34:53 -0000 On 30/01/18 14:01, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:15:12PM -0500, > avri doria wrote > a message of 11 lines which said: > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity/ >> >> Questions: >> >> - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? > > IMHO, yes, but I'm biased. I think so, too. >> - Who is interested in working on it? > > I am :-) Me, too. >> - Are the authors willing to give up change control? > > Yes. > >> - What remains to be be done on this? > > Much more discussions, I believe. I would like to help with: * More reasons why anonymity is necessary. * Which leads to more use cases. -Mallory -- Mallory Knodel Head of Digital :: article19.org gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 From nobody Wed Jan 31 22:38:58 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13D9312ECCA for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 22:38:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mK9b1ZgpwRbq for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 22:38:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84A6012762F for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 22:38:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eh8WK-0000PO-Mi for hrpc@irtf.org; Thu, 01 Feb 2018 07:38:52 +0100 To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <21d44e51-ed5a-08ac-ab8e-712235e3c8bc@acm.org> <127d8627-ad2a-f7d2-c385-956999f0a9fd@derechosdigitales.org> <20180123105207.GE28814@mir> From: Mallory Knodel Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:38:43 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180123105207.GE28814@mir> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="zDzaZO8xViQlMp27vEaBqXjG9mJy11v4E" X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: d77552016b0d73152e59fdba0d83a25d Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Freedom of Association on the Internet X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 06:38:56 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --zDzaZO8xViQlMp27vEaBqXjG9mJy11v4E Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="cDoSSGxZBmcPaG02Jry1wCAxkLFwshugF"; protected-headers="v1" From: Mallory Knodel To: hrpc@irtf.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Freedom of Association on the Internet References: <21d44e51-ed5a-08ac-ab8e-712235e3c8bc@acm.org> <127d8627-ad2a-f7d2-c385-956999f0a9fd@derechosdigitales.org> <20180123105207.GE28814@mir> In-Reply-To: <20180123105207.GE28814@mir> --cDoSSGxZBmcPaG02Jry1wCAxkLFwshugF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 23/01/18 13:52, Niels ten Oever wrote: >=20 > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 06:05:44PM -0600, Gisela Perez de Acha wrote: >> >>> Questions: >>> >>> - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc >> >> I believe it is. Not because it is already done, but because it is an >> interesting thing, with a promising approach, and most of all, people >> are working on it. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Farrell and >> Bortzmeyer have expressed in this mailing list the possibility for it = to >> be an RG document as well. >=20 > I think it is ready too. It has been discussed extensively at several m= eetings and on the list and is in pretty good shape. > Yes. >>> - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for th= e >>> group consensus for inclusion at the moment. Please be specific. >> >> Yes, we are currently working on the argument of the "Internet as an >> association" and the section regarding "spam and filter bubbles" so it= >> reflects what the group really thinks. >=20 > Even though we are indeed working on these revision in response to the = comments at last meeting and on the list afterwards, I don't think this s= hould stop document adoption. >=20 The controversy is a good sign. Seems very worthwhile to continue working out tensions. >>> - Who is interested in working on it >> >> Me :) >> >> Anyone else? >> >=20 > Me >=20 Me, too. >> Are the authors willing to give up change control >> >> I cannot make this decisions unilaterally, I would be fine, but let's >> ask Niels as well. >> >=20 > Happy to do so. > =20 >>> - What remains to be be done on this? >> >> Clean, edit and add all the comments. >> >=20 > Indeed. >=20 I also think my contribution could be mostly editing, making sure the arguments follow a logical structure and so on. Clearly there's a need to identify the sticking points and work through them or present the tensions clearly. -Mallory --=20 Mallory Knodel Head of Digital :: article19.org gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 --cDoSSGxZBmcPaG02Jry1wCAxkLFwshugF-- --zDzaZO8xViQlMp27vEaBqXjG9mJy11v4E Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQFKBAEBCAA0FiEE4+tj4GWjskC82bBxDDKicb08x4AFAlpytfMWHG1hbGxvcnlA YXJ0aWNsZTE5Lm9yZwAKCRAMMqJxvTzHgGD6CACiSXKvFY8r1md6KObhSFBB7jRZ wAcpMk+IlOH5V2WuhH36m6KJtiKW4Z5yMmYOZncqGwdncjedWs5QM3Gr23jndSPS pxEjrcmhapl2vXAdSaypMLiv2GQhTMW51YcyMVBYSp1jF0WqIxUQxUjWoqkL6M4X DscOg2z5yQhOg7CulELiqKUiQIk/Mue6kjVLolEQNQyFDfGHUpjnn2o2Ow/b2Yuk rDJ3bXrxWiTbSnjP6QgkzkVAb+dh0nuHUimNO3QAf3FFrmNJqNqk06LJp56aQH+7 eVeGwJLSdS7YKMDGxKKblXVZ9tPf3GJYxm/l+Y06xkLW5T2GPo0LOdL6CZkV =fqBT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --zDzaZO8xViQlMp27vEaBqXjG9mJy11v4E-- From nobody Wed Jan 31 22:40:42 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C546312EBFF for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 22:40:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tnd6Rf4GD4-q for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 22:40:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 054C912762F for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 22:40:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eh8Y1-00012b-BF for hrpc@irtf.org; Thu, 01 Feb 2018 07:40:37 +0100 To: hrpc@irtf.org References: <20180130144527.gltrb6wdrntzynef@nic.fr> From: Mallory Knodel Message-ID: <6084142f-5c53-80cf-4fdb-b8aa1b447d5a@article19.org> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:40:34 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180130144527.gltrb6wdrntzynef@nic.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: ba572e8a3bde05b4b19613c12a9e49fc Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] Guidelines for Human Rights Protocol Considerations X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 06:40:41 -0000 On 30/01/18 17:45, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:15:46PM -0500, > avri doria wrote > a message of 11 lines which said: > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-guidelines/ >> >> Questions: >> >> - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? > > IMHO, yes (after all, it is an extract from RFC 8280). > Definitely. >> - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the >> group consensus for inclusion at the moment? > > No Probably not since it's based off of 8280. >> - Who is interested in working on it? > > Me Me, too. >> - What remains to be be done on this? > > Two or three HR analyzes of actual drafts, based on this document, to > see how it works. > Agree that existing work on draft analysis needs to be done in parallel to this and that we feed lessons learned and other tweaks back into the guidelines document to ensure that it's usable and achieves its goals. -Mallory -- Mallory Knodel Head of Digital :: article19.org gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 From nobody Wed Jan 31 22:46:10 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0519F13157D for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 22:46:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6xjMHmO8AaCv for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 22:46:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 093D713157A for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 22:46:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eh8dI-00023a-4e for hrpc@irtf.org; Thu, 01 Feb 2018 07:46:05 +0100 To: hrpc@irtf.org References: From: Mallory Knodel Message-ID: <698cff13-c375-a850-3cbd-124ef3454741@article19.org> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:45:59 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Scan-Signature: 9b84bad32751a42de3aa9e7877f1ca86 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hrpc] On the Politics of Standards X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 06:46:09 -0000 On 23/01/18 15:19, Amelia Andersdotter wrote: >=20 > On 2018-01-16 18:16, avri doria wrote: >> Re: draft-tenoever-hrpc-political-02 >> =C2=A0 >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-political/ >> >> Questions: >> >> - Is the doc is ready to be a RG doc? >=20 > No. >=20 I take the lead from the authors :) >> - Does the doc contain issues that are still too controversial for the >> group consensus for inclusion at the moment? Please be specific. >=20 > With the current research question, the conclusion seems foregone and > also is, by itself, controversial. >=20 Issues are controversial but I don't think "too controversial" in the sense that the point of the document seems to be to build consensus around a pretty important foundational principle of the group. So I think it's exactly the kind of thing the RG should be working on. When the doc is ready for RG adoption. >> - Who is interested in working on it? >=20 > Me. >=20 Me, too. >> - Are the authors willing to give up change control? >> >> - What remains to be be done on this? >=20 > Quite much, yes. >=20 Seems to me that framing is really important. There is not much of an introduction, which would set the tone for the various chapters that follow. I think that the case being made is that code/protocols/tech is a regulator, much like law. And that while law is a tool and meant to be impartial it obviously has political implications. So, too, protocols. And then the various aspects of that framework follow in each section. -Mallory --=20 Mallory Knodel Head of Digital :: article19.org gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780