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

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:14:17 +0100

Hi all,

Here is a new version of draft-tenoever-hrpc political, based on review
of discussions during IETF100 as well discussions on-list and two
off-list threads.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tenoever-hrpc-political-03

I feel this document got more well-rounded and feels like it getting
somewhere. But of course I am curious to hear what you think about that.

I just saw that I did not properly push my changes to the abstract. I
wanted that to be:

This document maps different perspectives on the relation between
protocols and politics existing in the Internet community and seeks to
understand what this could mean for the IETF.

But I am not 100% satisfied with that either, so comments on this and
other parts are of course welcome on the list, on mail or as pull
request here:

https://github.com/nllz/IRTF-HRPC/blob/master/draft-political.md

All the best,

Niels

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:20:20 +0100

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:14:17PM +0100,
 Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]> wrote 

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tenoever-hrpc-political-03

Although better, this document still seems to me too vague. It is not
clear for the reader what's the goal. Section 10 makes the purpose
much clearer, but I suggest to summarize it right from the start,
otherwise some readers will drop reading before the end. I suggest to
add in the abstract "This document claims that we should acknowledge
there is politics in standards, and I-D should be evaluated, among
other things, in that light" (yes, it spoils, but this is a research
draft, not a movie).

More specifically:

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

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

Editorial:

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

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