As noted in the Introduction, this draft "continues the work started in
"Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations" [RFC8280] by investigating
the impact of Internet protocols on a specific set of human rights, namely the
right to peaceful assembly and the right to association." Taking several
Internet protocols (and some Web standards and applications) as cases, this
draft considers how the design of those protocols affects (including supporting
or endangering) rights to assembly and association through different means.
This is intended as just one piece of research expanding on the human rights
protocol considerations more generally.
There is no formal template for document shepherd write-ups in IRTF, but it
seems reasonable to roughly follow the initial IETF Shepherd guidance in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4858/
a. Nick Doty is the shepherd for this document; I'm new to this shepherd role,
and please forgive me for any misunderstandings I may have about it. I have
personally reviewed this document (over a few rounds) and raised several issues
and the authors have addressed them all. I believe it is now ready for review
by the IRTF Chair, IRSG and IESG and publication.
b-c. There have been substantial reviews by the RG, including experts in the
topic area, and discussion at several HRPC meetings. I believe those reviews
have been sufficiently deep and broad.
d. I have no remaining concerns or issues with the document. I'm not aware of
any IPR disclosures and wouldn't expect that to be an issue with this kind of
research document.
e-f. Consensus: there is support for the document and consensus to publish it.
HRPC's RG Last Call didn't uncover any objections, but also didn't spark any
further reviews or engagement. I think the length of time from initially
working on this document to getting it complete for publication has made it
harder to sustain strong interest from the RG and that we should try to avoid
such long time periods in the future. I have not identified any extreme
discontent or likelihood to appeal.
g. Comments on the nits identified by the tool below. I do have some open
questions about Unicode characters, but not blocking further review.
h. Informative references only.
i. No IANA actions needed.
j. N/A
k. I don't think a IRTF has a Document Announcement Write-Up at this stage, but
happy to provide such a summary if the IRTF Chair or IRSG would like that.
## idnits
https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-irtf-hrpc-association-12.txt
Dates in the past I don't think are a problem; this draft is older, and things
like date and copyright will be updated after reviews and prior to publication.
Quotation marks are not consistent throughout and non-ascii quotation marks
cause some idnit flags on line 622, 1227. We should change them throughout.
Prior to publication, line 1010 should be non-ascii Unicode characters in
Arabic, rather than the entity sequence codes.
References:
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 155
(Obsoleted by RFC 168)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1163
(Obsoleted by RFC 1267)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1164
(Obsoleted by RFC 1268)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1771
(Obsoleted by RFC 4271)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5751
(Obsoleted by RFC 8551)
Most of these references are intentionally referring to the historical
definitions or context of how protocols were first described. RFC 5751
(S/MIME), though, could be updated to RFC 8551, S/MIME 4.0 I don't think it's
essential as this is just an informational reference referring to S/MIME as a
technology in general, but the latest version is probably preferable.