IETF conflict review for draft-irtf-hrpc-research
conflict-review-irtf-hrpc-research-00
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-09-05
|
00 | Amy Vezza | The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: hrpc-chairs@ietf.org, Allison Mankin , Internet Research Steering Group , … The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: hrpc-chairs@ietf.org, Allison Mankin , Internet Research Steering Group , draft-irtf-hrpc-research@ietf.org, irtf-chair@irtf.org Cc: IETF-Announce , The IESG , iana@iana.org Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-irtf-hrpc-research-14 The IESG has completed a review of draft-irtf-hrpc-research-14 consistent with RFC5742. The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations' as an Informational RFC. The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in many working groups, but this relationship does not prevent publishing. The IESG would also like the IRTF to review the comments in the datatracker related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the history log. The IESG review is documented at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-irtf-hrpc-research/ A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-hrpc-research/ The process for such documents is described in RFC 5743 Thank you, The IESG Secretary |
2017-09-05
|
00 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the conflict review response |
2017-09-05
|
00 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2017-09-05
|
00 | Amy Vezza | Conflict Review State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement sent from Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent |
2017-08-31
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | Conflict Review State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation |
2017-08-31
|
00 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thank you for all of the work that went into this draft, which is clearly well researched and will serve as helpful guidance … [Ballot comment] Thank you for all of the work that went into this draft, which is clearly well researched and will serve as helpful guidance in protocol development considering human rights. I read through the document and have a couple of comments and found a few nits. I hope this is helpful. Section 3 s/Internet Research Taskforce (IRTF)/Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)/ Section 5.2.3.1.2 Address translation section - While I agree with the end-to-end principle, I’m curious as to how the draft got to the current phrasing since it’s people that program the router and the decisions around NAT are decided by that programming and apply to groups of addresses typically (all) behind a device. As such a layer of anonymity is provided for the users behind the NAT device with only those with access to the NAT device having knowledge of the mapping. In some cases that might hinder assembly, but I would think it would enhance it in others. I’m also not sure how NAT relates to forward routing as described in the previous sentence. The routing rather than translation would be responsible for correct routing decisions. If your talking about something malicious or deliberate to impact users, I think separating that out from the technology is important. It is entirely possible and a concern, so stating it in a way that makes sense would be good. It probably fits better in section 5.2.3.3.2. Here’s the text: This process puts the router performing the translation into a privileged position, where it can decide which subset of communications are worthy of translation, and whether an unknown request for communication will be correctly forwarded to a host on the other network. Wouldn’t saying the following be more accurate: This process puts the router performing the translation into a privileged position, where it is predetermined which subset of communications will be translated. Then perhaps a statement on those responsible for programming the device to get at your other points? The rest of the text in this section reads fine and specific to the technology. Section 5.2.3.5 S/peer-to-peer remains imporant/peer-to-peer remains important/ Section 5.3.6.2 This paragraph could use some additional work, but here’s a few glaring typos/edits: First sentence - drop the last word “to”. s/retain logs for long enough/retain logs long enough/ s/considerig/considering/ Section 5.2.3.6.5 Can you break this into a couple of sentences? |
2017-08-31
|
00 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2017-08-31
|
00 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2017-08-31
|
00 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Interesting read (I browsed through the doc and spent more time on section 6, Spencer). |
2017-08-31
|
00 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2017-08-30
|
00 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2017-08-30
|
00 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2017-08-30
|
00 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2017-08-30
|
00 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Suresh Krishnan has been changed to Yes from No Objection |
2017-08-30
|
00 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2017-08-29
|
00 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2017-08-29
|
00 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2017-08-28
|
00 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2017-08-25
|
00 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2017-08-24
|
00 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] Just to be clear on why I proposed this response - the underlying IRTF document analyses a large number of IETF protocols for … [Ballot comment] Just to be clear on why I proposed this response - the underlying IRTF document analyses a large number of IETF protocols for impact on human rights, across most areas, including some protocols that are actively under development now, and proposes a checklist of human rights considerations for protocol work in Section 6. So, it is related to IETF work, but does not fall under any of the other possible conflict review responses. "I hope everyone reads Section 6" isn't an allowable conflict review response, but I hope people do ... :-) |
2017-08-24
|
00 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot comment text updated for Spencer Dawkins |
2017-08-24
|
00 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2017-08-24
|
00 | Spencer Dawkins | Created "Approve" ballot |
2017-08-24
|
00 | Spencer Dawkins | Conflict Review State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Review |
2017-08-24
|
00 | Spencer Dawkins | New version available: conflict-review-irtf-hrpc-research-00.txt |
2017-08-15
|
00 | Spencer Dawkins | Telechat date has been changed to 2017-08-31 from 2017-08-17 |
2017-08-15
|
00 | Spencer Dawkins | Shepherding AD changed to Spencer Dawkins |
2017-08-15
|
00 | Spencer Dawkins | Conflict Review State changed to AD Review from Needs Shepherd |
2017-08-15
|
00 | Spencer Dawkins | I'll take this one, unless someone else wants it more :-) |
2017-08-04
|
00 | Amy Vezza | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-08-17 |
2017-07-23
|
00 | Allison Mankin | IETF conflict review requested |