Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research GroupN. ten Oever (editor)
Internet-Draft                                                ARTICLE 19
Intended status: Informational                         November 12, 2017
Expires: May 16, 2018

          Guidelines for Human Rights Protocol Considerations


   This document proposes guidelines for human rights considerations,
   similar to the work done on the guidelines for privacy considerations
   [RFC6973].  This is an updated version of the guidelines for human
   rights considerations in [RFC8280].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 16, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   ( in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Vocabulary used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Model for developing human rights protocol considerations . .   2
     3.1.  Human rights threats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Guidelines for human rights considerations  . . . . . . .   4
       3.2.1.  Connectivity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.2.2.  Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.3.  Content agnosticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.4.  Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.2.5.  Internationalization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.2.6.  Censorship resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.2.7.  Open Standards  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.2.8.  Heterogeneity Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.2.9.  Anonymity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.2.10. Pseudonymity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.2.11. Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       3.2.12. Localization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       3.2.13. Decentralization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       3.2.14. Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       3.2.15. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       3.2.16. Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       3.2.17. Authenticity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       3.2.18. Adaptability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       3.2.19. Outcome Transparency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       3.2.20. Anonymity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   4.  Document Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   8.  Research Group Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     9.1.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     9.2.  URIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26

1.  Introduction

2.  Vocabulary used

3.  Model for developing human rights protocol considerations

   This section outlines a set of human rights protocol considerations
   for protocol developers.  It provides questions engineers should ask
   themselves when developing or improving protocols if they want to
   understand their human rights impact.  It should however be noted
   that the impact of a protocol cannot solely be deduced from its

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

   design, but its usage and implementation should also be studied to
   form a full protocol human rights impact assessment.

   The questions are based on the research performed by the hrpc
   research group which has been documented before these considerations.
   The research establishes that human rights relate to standards and
   protocols and offers a common vocabulary of technical concepts that
   impact human rights and how these technical concept can be combined
   to ensure that the Internet remains an enabling environment for human
   rights.  With this the contours of a model for developing human
   rights protocol considerations has taken shape.

3.1.  Human rights threats

   Human rights threats on the Internet come in a myriad of forms.
   Protocols and standards can harm or enable the right to freedom of
   expression, right to non-discrimination, right to equal protection,
   right to participate in cultural life, arts and science, right to
   freedom of assembly and association, and the right to security.  An
   end-user who is denied access to certain services, data or websites
   may be unable to disclose vital information about the malpractices of
   a government or other authority.  A person whose communications are
   monitored may be prevented from exercising their right to freedom of
   association or participate in political processes [Penney].  In a
   worst-case scenario, protocols that leak information can lead to
   physical danger.  A realistic example to consider is when individuals
   perceived as threats to the state are subjected to torture or
   extrajudicial killing or detention on the basis of information
   gathered by state agencies through information leakage in protocols.

   This section details several 'common' threats to human rights,
   indicating how each of these can lead to human rights violations/
   harms and present several examples of how these threats to human
   rights materialize on the Internet.  This threat modeling is inspired
   by [RFC6973] Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols, which is
   based on the security threat analysis.  This method is by no means a
   perfect solution for assessing human rights risks in Internet
   protocols and systems; it is however the best approach currently
   available.  Certain specific human rights threats are indirectly
   considered in Internet protocols as part of the security
   considerations [BCP72], but privacy guidelines [RFC6973] or reviews,
   let alone human rights impact assessments of protocols are not
   standardized or implemented.

   Many threats, enablers and risks are linked to different rights.
   This is not unsurprising if one takes into account that human rights
   are interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.  Here however we're
   not discussing all human rights because not all human rights are

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

   relevant to ICTs in general and protocols and standards in particular
   [Bless]: "The main source of the values of human rights is the
   International Bill of Human Rights that is composed of the Universal
   Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR] along with the International
   Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR] and the International
   Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [ICESCR].  In the
   light of several cases of Internet censorship, the Human Rights
   Council Resolution 20/8 was adopted in 2012 [UNHRC2016], affirming ".
   . . that the same rights that people have offline must also be
   protected online. . . " . In 2015, the Charter of Human Rights and
   Principles for the Internet [IRP] was developed and released.
   According to these documents, some examples of human rights relevant
   for ICT systems are human dignity (Art. 1 UDHR), non-discrimination
   (Art. 2), rights to life, liberty and security (Art. 3), freedom of
   opinion and expression (Art. 19), freedom of assembly and association
   (Art. 20), rights to equal protection, legal remedy, fair trial, due
   process, presumed innocent (Art. 7-11), appropriate social and
   international order (Art. 28), participation in public affairs (Art.
   21), participation in cultural life, protection of intellectual
   property (Art. 27), and privacy (Art. 12)."  A partial catalog of
   human rights related to ICTs, including economic rights, can be found
   in [Hill2014].

   This is by no means an attempt to exclude specific rights or
   prioritize some rights over others.  If other rights seem relevant,
   please contact the authors.

3.2.  Guidelines for human rights considerations

   This section provides guidance for document authors in the form of a
   questionnaire about protocols and their (potential) impact.  The
   questionnaire may be useful at any point in the design process,
   particularly after document authors have developed a high-level
   protocol model as described in [RFC4101].  These guidelines do not
   seek to replace any existing referenced specifications, but rather
   contribute to them and look at the design process from a human rights

   Protocols and Internet Standard might benefit from a documented
   discussion of potential human rights risks arising from potential
   misapplications of the protocol or technology described in the RFC.
   This might be coupled with an Applicability Statement for that RFC.

   Note that the guidance provided in this section does not recommend
   specific practices.  The range of protocols developed in the IETF is
   too broad to make recommendations about particular uses of data or
   how human rights might be balanced against other design goals.
   However, by carefully considering the answers to the following

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

   questions, document authors should be able to produce a comprehensive
   analysis that can serve as the basis for discussion on whether the
   protocol adequately takes specific human rights threats into account.
   This guidance is meant to help the thought process of a human rights
   analysis; it does not provide specific directions for how to write a
   human rights protocol considerations section (following the example
   set in [RFC6973]), and the addition of a human rights protocol
   considerations section has also not yet been proposed.  In
   considering these questions, authors will need to be aware of the
   potential of technical advances or the passage of time to undermine
   protections.  In general, considerations of rights are likely to be
   more effective if they are considered given a purpose and specific
   use cases, rather than as abstract absolute goals.

3.2.1.  Connectivity

   Question(s): Does your protocol add application-specific functions to
   intermediary nodes?  Could this functionality be added to end nodes
   instead of intermediary nodes?  Is your protocol optimized for low
   bandwidth and high latency connections?  Could your protocol also be
   developed in a stateless manner?

   Explanation: The end-to-end principle [Saltzer] holds that 'the
   intelligence is end to end rather than hidden in the network'
   [RFC1958].  The end-to-end principle is important for the robustness
   of the network and innovation.  Such robustness of the network is
   crucial to enabling human rights like freedom of expression.

   Example: Middleboxes (which can be Content Delivery Networks,
   Firewalls, NATs or other intermediary nodes that provide other
   'services' than routing) serve many legitimate purposes.  But the
   protocols guiding them, can influence individuals' ability to
   communicate online freely and privately.  The potential for abuse and
   intentional and unintentional censoring and limiting permissionless
   innovation, and thus ultimately the impact of middleboxes on the
   Internet as a place of unfiltered, unmonitored freedom of speech, is


   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to freedom of assembly and association

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

3.2.2.  Privacy

   Question(s): Did you have a look at the Guidelines in the Privacy
   Considerations for Internet Protocols [RFC6973] section 7?  Could
   your protocol in any way impact the confidentiality of protocol
   metadata?  Could your protocol counter traffic analysis?  Could your
   protocol improve data minimization?  Does your document identify
   potentially sensitive logged data by your protocol and/or for how
   long that needs to be retained for technical reasons?

   Explanation: Privacy refers to the right of an entity (normally a
   person), acting in its own behalf, to determine the degree to which
   it will interact with its environment, including the degree to which
   the entity is willing to share its personal information with others.
   [RFC4949].  If a protocol provides insufficient privacy protection it
   may have a negative impact on freedom of expression as users self-
   censor for fear of surveillance, or find themselves unable to express
   themselves freely.

   Example: See [RFC6973]


   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to non-discrimination

3.2.3.  Content agnosticism

   Question(s): If your protocol impacts packet handling, does it use
   user data (packet data that is not included in the header)?  Is it
   making decisions based on the payload of the packet?  Does your
   protocol prioritize certain content or services over others in the
   routing process ? Is the protocol transparent about the
   prioritization that is made (if any)?

   Explanation: Content agnosticism refers to the notion that network
   traffic is treated identically regardless of payload, with some
   exception where it comes to effective traffic handling, for instance
   where it comes to delay tolerant or delay sensitive packets, based on
   the header.

   Example: Content agnosticism prevents payload-based discrimination
   against packets.  This is important because changes to this principle
   can lead to a two-tiered Internet, where certain packets are
   prioritized over others on the basis of their content.  Effectively
   this would mean that although all users are entitled to receive their
   packets at a certain speed, some users become more equal than others.

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017


   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to non-discrimination

   -  Right to equal protection

3.2.4.  Security

   Question(s): Did you have a look at Guidelines for Writing RFC Text
   on Security Considerations [BCP72]?  Have you found any "attacks that
   are somewhat related to your protocol yet considered out of scope of
   your document?  Would these attacks be pertinent to the human rights
   enabling features of the Internet (as described throughout this

   Explanation: Most people speak of security as if it were a single
   monolithic property of a protocol or system, however, upon reflection
   one realizes that it is clearly not true.  Rather, security is a
   series of related but somewhat independent properties.  Not all of
   these properties are required for every application.  Since
   communications are carried out by systems and access to systems is
   through communications channels, these goals obviously interlock, but
   they can also be independently provided [BCP72].

   Example: See [BCP72].


   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to freedom of assembly and association

   -  Right to non-discrimination

   -  Right to security

3.2.5.  Internationalization

   Question(s): Does your protocol have text strings that have to be
   understood or entered by humans?  Does your protocol allow Unicode?
   If so, do you accept texts in one charset (which must be UTF-8), or
   several (which is dangerous for interoperability)?  If character sets
   or encodings other than UTF-8 are allowed, does your protocol mandate
   a proper tagging of the charset?  Did you have a look at [RFC6365]?

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

   Explanation: Internationalization refers to the practice of making
   protocols, standards, and implementations usable in different
   languages and scripts (see Localization).  In the IETF,
   internationalization means to add or improve the handling of non-
   ASCII text in a protocol.  [RFC6365] A different perspective, more
   appropriate to protocols that are designed for global use from the
   beginning, is the definition used by W3C:

        "Internationalization is the design and development of a
        product, application or document content that enables easy
        localization for target audiences that vary in culture, region,
        or language."  {{W3Ci18nDef}}

   Many protocols that handle text only handle one charset (US-ASCII),
   or leave the question of what CCS and encoding are used up to local
   guesswork (which leads, of course, to interoperability problems).  If
   multiple charsets are permitted, they must be explicitly identified
   [RFC2277].  Adding non-ASCII text to a protocol allows the protocol
   to handle more scripts, hopefully representing users across the
   world.  In today's world, that is normally best accomplished by
   allowing Unicode encoded in UTF-8 only.

   In the current IETF policy [RFC2277], internationalization is aimed
   at user-facing strings, not protocol elements, such as the verbs used
   by some text-based protocols.  (Do note that some strings are both
   content and protocol elements, such as the identifiers.)  If the
   Internet wants to be a global network of networks, the protocols
   should work with other languages than English and other character
   sets than latin characters.  It is therefore crucial that at least
   the content carried by the protocol can be in any script, and that
   all scripts are treated equally.

   Example: See localization


   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to political participation

   -  Right to participate in cultural life, arts and science

3.2.6.  Censorship resistance

   Question(s): Does this protocol introduce new identifiers or reuse
   existing identifiers (e.g.  MAC addresses) that might be associated
   with persons or content?  Does your protocol make it apparent or
   transparent when access to a resource it restricted?  Can your

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

   protocol contribute to filtering in a way it could be implemented to
   censor data or services?  Could this be designed to ensure this
   doesn't happen?

   Explanation: Censorship resistance refers to the methods and measures
   to prevent Internet censorship.

   Example: In the development of the IPv6 protocol it was discussed to
   embed a Media Access Control (MAC) address into unique IP addresses.
   This would make it possible for 'eavesdroppers and other information
   collectors to identify when different addresses used in different
   transactions actually correspond to the same node.  [RFC4941] This is
   why Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
   IPv6 have been introduced.  [RFC4941]

   Identifiers of content exposed within a protocol might be used to
   facilitate censorship, as in the case of Application Layer based
   censorship, which affects protocols like HTTP.  Denial or restriction
   of access can be made apparent by the use of status code 451 - which
   allows server operators to operate with greater transparency in
   circumstances where issues of law or public policy affect their
   operation [RFC7725].


   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to political participation

   -  Right to participate in cultural life, arts and science

   -  Right to freedom of assembly and association

3.2.7.  Open Standards

   Question(s): Is your protocol fully documented in a way that it could
   be easily implemented, improved, built upon and/or further developed?
   Do you depend on proprietary code for the implementation, running or
   further development of your protocol?  Does your protocol favor a
   particular proprietary specification over technically equivalent and
   competing specification(s), for instance by making any incorporated
   vendor specification "required" or "recommended" [RFC2026]?  Do you
   normatively reference another standard that is not available without
   cost (and could it possible be done without)?  Are you aware of any
   patents that would prevent your standard from being fully implemented
   [RFC3979] [RFC6701]?

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

   Explanation: The Internet was able to be developed into the global
   network of networks because of the existence of open, non-proprietary
   standards [Zittrain].  They are crucial for enabling
   interoperability.  Yet, open standards are not explicitly defined
   within the IETF.  On the subject, [RFC2026] states: Various national
   and international standards bodies, such as ANSI, ISO, IEEE, and ITU-
   T, develop a variety of protocol and service specifications that are
   similar to Technical Specifications defined at the IETF.  National
   and international groups also publish "implementors' agreements" that
   are analogous to Applicability Statements, capturing a body of
   implementation-specific detail concerned with the practical
   application of their standards.  All of these are considered to be
   "open external standards" for the purposes of the Internet Standards
   Process.  Similarly, [RFC3935] does not define open standards but
   does emphasize the importance of 'open process': any interested
   person can participate in the work, know what is being decided, and
   make his or her voice heard on the issue.  Part of this principle is
   the IETF's commitment to making its documents, WG mailing lists,
   attendance lists, and meeting minutes publicly available on the

   Open standards are important as they allow for permissionless
   innovation, which is important to maintain the freedom and ability to
   freely create and deploy new protocols on top of the communications
   constructs that currently exist.  It is at the heart of the Internet
   as we know it, and to maintain its fundamentally open nature, we need
   to be mindful of the need for developing open standards.

   All standards that need to be normatively implemented should be
   freely available and with reasonable protection for patent
   infringement claims, so it can also be implemented in open source or
   free software.  Patents have often held back open standardization or
   been used against those deploying open standards, particularly in the
   domain of cryptography [newegg].  An exemption of this is sometimes
   made when a protocol is standardized that normatively relies on
   speficiations produced by others SDOs that are not freely available.
   Patents in open standards or in normative references to other
   standards should have a patent disclosure [notewell], royalty-free
   licensing [patentpolicy], or some other form of reasonable
   protection.  Reasonable patent protection should includes but is not
   limited to cryptographic primitives.

   Example: [RFC6108] describes a system for providing critical end-user
   notifications to web browsers, which has been deployed by Comcast, an
   Internet Service Provider (ISP).  Such a notification system is being
   used to provide near-immediate notifications to customers, such as to
   warn them that their traffic exhibits patterns that are indicative of
   malware or virus infection.  There are other proprietary systems that

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

   can perform such notifications, but those systems utilize Deep Packet
   Inspection (DPI) technology.  In contrast to DPI, this document
   describes a system that does not rely upon DPI, and is instead based
   in open IETF standards and open source applications.


   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to participate in cultural life, arts and science

3.2.8.  Heterogeneity Support

   Question(s): Does your protocol support heterogeneity by design?
   Does your protocol allow for multiple types of hardware?  Does your
   protocol allow for multiple types of application protocols?  Is your
   protocol liberal in what it receives and handles?  Will it remain
   usable and open if the context changes?  Does your protocol allow
   there to be well-defined extension points?  Do these extension points
   allow for open innovation?

   Explanation: The Internet is characterized by heterogeneity on many
   levels: devices and nodes, router scheduling algorithms and queue
   management mechanisms, routing protocols, levels of multiplexing,
   protocol versions and implementations, underlying link layers (e.g.,
   point-to-point, multi-access links, wireless, FDDI, etc.), in the
   traffic mix and in the levels of congestion at different times and
   places.  Moreover, as the Internet is composed of autonomous
   organizations and Internet service providers, each with their own
   separate policy concerns, there is a large heterogeneity of
   administrative domains and pricing structures.  As a result, the
   heterogeneity principle proposed in [RFC1958] needs to be supported
   by design [FIArch].

   Example: Heterogeneity is inevitable and needs be supported by
   design.  Multiple types of hardware must be allowed for, e.g.
   transmission speeds differing by at least 7 orders of magnitude,
   various computer word lengths, and hosts ranging from memory-starved
   microprocessors up to massively parallel supercomputers.  Multiple
   types of application protocol must be allowed for, ranging from the
   simplest such as remote login up to the most complex such as
   distributed databases [RFC1958].


   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to political participtation

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

3.2.9.  Anonymity

   Question(s): Did you have a look at the Privacy Considerations for
   Internet Protocols [RFC6973], especially section 6.1.1 ?

   Explanation: Anonymity refers to the condition of an identity being
   unknown or concealed [RFC4949].  Even though full anonymity is hard
   to achieve, it is a non-binary concept.  Making pervasive monitoring
   and tracking harder is important for many users as well as for the
   IETF [RFC7258].  Achieving a higher level of anonymity is an
   important feature for many end-users, as it allows them different
   degrees of privacy online.

   Example: Often protocols expose personal data, it is important to
   consider ways to mitigate the obvious privacy impacts.  A protocol
   that uses data that could help identify a sender (items of interest)
   should be protected from third parties.  For instance if one wants to
   hide the source/destination IP addresses of a packet, the use of
   IPsec in tunneling mode (e.g., inside a virtual private network) can
   be helpful to protect from third parties likely to eavesdrop packets
   exchanged between the tunnel endpoints.


   -  Right to non-discrimination

   -  Right to political participation

   -  Right to freedom of assembly and association

   -  Right to security

3.2.10.  Pseudonymity

   Question(s): Have you considered the Privacy Considerations for
   Internet Protocols [RFC6973], especially section 6.1.2 ? Does the
   protocol collect personally derived data?  Does the protocol generate
   or process anything that can be, or be tightly correlated with,
   personally identifiable information?  Does the protocol utilize data
   that is personally-derived, i.e. derived from the interaction of a
   single person, or their device or address?  Does this protocol
   generate personally derived data, and if so how will that data be

   Explanation: Pseudonymity - the ability to use a persistent
   identifier not linked to one's offline identity" straight away - is
   an important feature for many end-users, as it allows them different
   degrees of disguised identity and privacy online.

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

   Example: Designing a standard that exposes personal data, it is
   important to consider ways to mitigate the obvious impacts.  While
   pseudonyms cannot be simply reverse engineered - some early
   approaches simply took approaches such as simple hashing of IP
   addreses, these could then be simply reversed by generating a hash
   for each potential IP address and comparing it to the pseudonym -
   limiting the exposure of personal data remains important.

   Pseudonymity means using a pseudonym instead of one's "real" name.
   There are many reasons for users to use pseudoyms, for instance to:
   hide their gender, protect themselves against harassment, protect
   their families' privacy, frankly discuss sexuality, or develop a
   artistic or journalistic persona without retribution from an
   employer, (potential) customers, or social surrounding.
   [geekfeminism] The difference between anonymity and pseudonymity is
   that a pseudonym often is persistent.  "Pseudonymity is strengthened
   when less personal data can be linked to the pseudonym; when the same
   pseudonym is used less often and across fewer contexts; and when
   independently chosen pseudonyms are more frequently used for new
   actions (making them, from an observer's or attacker's perspective,
   unlinkable)."  [RFC6973]


   -  Right to non-discrimination

   -  Right to freedom of assembly and association

3.2.11.  Accessibility

   Question(s): Is your protocol designed to provide an enabling
   environment for people who are not able-bodied?  Have you looked at
   the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative for examples and guidance?

   Explanation: The Internet is fundamentally designed to work for all
   people, whatever their hardware, software, language, culture,
   location, or physical or mental ability.  When the Internet meets
   this goal, it is accessible to people with a diverse range of
   hearing, movement, sight, and cognitive ability [W3CAccessibility].
   Sometimes in the design of protocols, websites, web technologies, or
   web tools, barriers are created that exclude people from using the

   Example: The HTML protocol as defined in [HTML5] specifically
   requires that every image must have an alt attribute (with a few
   exceptions) to ensure images are accessible for people that cannot
   themselves decipher non-text content in web pages.

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017


   -  Right to non-discrimination

   -  Right to freedom of assembly and association

   -  Right to education

   -  Right to political participation

3.2.12.  Localization

   Question(s): Does your protocol uphold the standards of
   internationalization?  Have made any concrete steps towards
   localizing your protocol for relevant audiences?

   Explanation: Localization refers to the adaptation of a product,
   application or document content to meet the language, cultural and
   other requirements of a specific target market (a locale)
   [W3Ci18nDef].  It is also described as the practice of translating an
   implementation to make it functional in a specific language or for
   users in a specific locale (see Internationalization).

   Example: The Internet is a global medium, but many of its protocols
   and products are developed with a certain audience in mind, that
   often share particular characteristics like knowing how to read and
   write in ASCII and knowing English.  This limits the ability of a
   large part of the world's online population from using the Internet
   in a way that is culturally and linguistically accessible.  An
   example of a protocol that has taken into account the view that
   individuals like to have access to data in their native language can
   be found in [RFC5646].  This protocol labels the information content
   with an identifier for the language in which it is written.  And this
   allows information to be presented in more than one language.


   -  Right to non-discrimination

   -  Right to participate in cultural life, arts and science

   -  Right to freedom of expression

3.2.13.  Decentralization

   Question(s): Can your protocol be implemented without one single
   point of control?  If applicable, can your protocol be deployed in a
   federated manner?  What is the potential for discrimination against

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

   users of your protocol?  How can the use of your protocol be used to
   implicate users?  Does your protocol create additional centralized
   points of control?

   Explanation: Decentralization is one of the central technical
   concepts of the architecture of the networks, and embraced as such by
   the IETF [RFC3935].  It refers to the absence or minimization of
   centralized points of control; a feature that is assumed to make it
   easy for new users to join and new uses to unfold [Brown].  It also
   reduces issues surrounding single points of failure, and distributes
   the network such that it continues to function if one or several
   nodes are disabled.  With the commercialization of the Internet in
   the early 1990's there has been a slow move to move away from
   decentralization, to the detriment of the technical benefits of
   having a decentralized Internet.

   Example: The bits traveling the Internet are increasingly susceptible
   to monitoring and censorship, from both governments and Internet
   service providers, as well as third (malicious) parties.  The ability
   to monitor and censor is further enabled by the increased
   centralization of the network that creates central infrastructure
   points that can be tapped in to.  The creation of peer-to-peer
   networks and the development of voice-over-IP protocols using peer-
   to-peer technology in combination with distributed hash table (DHT)
   for scalability are examples of how protocols can preserve
   decentralization [Pouwelse].


   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to freedom of assembly and association

3.2.14.  Reliability

   Question(s): Is your protocol fault tolerant?  Does it degrade
   gracefully?  Can your protocol resist malicious degradation attempts?
   Do you have a documented way to announce degradation?  Do you have
   measures in place for recovery or partial healing from failure?  Can
   your protocol maintain dependability and performance in the face of
   unanticipated changes or circumstances?

   Explanation: Reliability ensures that a protocol will execute its
   function consistently and error resistant as described, and function
   without unexpected result.  A system that is reliable degenerates
   gracefully and will have a documented way to announce degradation.
   It also has mechanisms to recover from failure gracefully, and if
   applicable, allow for partial healing.  It is important here to draw

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

   a distinction between random degradation and malicious degradation.
   Many current attacks against TLS, for example, exploit TLS's ability
   to gracefully degrade to older cipher suites - from a functional
   perspective, this is good.  From a security perspective, this can be
   very bad.  As with confidentiality, the growth of the Internet and
   fostering innovation in services depends on users having confidence
   and trust [RFC3724] in the network.  For reliability it is necessary
   that services notify the users if a delivery fails.  In the case of
   real-time systems in addition to the reliable delivery the protocol
   needs to safeguard timeliness.

   Example: In the modern IP stack structure, a reliable transport layer
   requires an indication that transport processing has successfully
   completed, such as given by TCP's ACK message [RFC0793], and not
   simply an indication from the IP layer that the packet arrived.
   Similarly, an application layer protocol may require an application-
   specific acknowledgement that contains, among other things, a status
   code indicating the disposition of the request (See [RFC3724]).


   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to security

3.2.15.  Confidentiality

   Question(s): Does this protocol expose information related to
   identifiers or data?  If so, does it do so to each other protocol
   entity (i.e., recipients, intermediaries, and enablers) [RFC6973]?
   What options exist for protocol implementers to choose to limit the
   information shared with each entity?  What operational controls are
   available to limit the information shared with each entity?

   What controls or consent mechanisms does the protocol define or
   require before personal data or identifiers are shared or exposed via
   the protocol?  If no such mechanisms or controls are specified, is it
   expected that control and consent will be handled outside of the

   Does the protocol provide ways for initiators to share different
   pieces of information with different recipients?  If not, are there
   mechanisms that exist outside of the protocol to provide initiators
   with such control?

   Does the protocol provide ways for initiators to limit which
   information is shared with intermediaries?  If not, are there
   mechanisms that exist outside of the protocol to provide users with

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

   such control?  Is it expected that users will have relationships that
   govern the use of the information (contractual or otherwise) with
   those who operate these intermediaries?  Does the protocol prefer
   encryption over clear text operation?

   Does the protocol provide ways for initiators to express individuals'
   preferences to recipients or intermediaries with regard to the
   collection, use, or disclosure of their personal data?

   Explanation: Confidentiality refers to keeping your data secret from
   unintended listeners [BCP72].  The growth of the Internet depends on
   users having confidence that the network protects their personal data

   Example: Protocols that do not encrypt their payload make the entire
   content of the communication available to the idealized attacker
   along their path.  Following the advice in [RFC3365], most such
   protocols have a secure variant that encrypts the payload for
   confidentiality, and these secure variants are seeing ever-wider
   deployment.  A noteworthy exception is DNS [RFC1035], as DNSSEC
   [RFC4033]does not have confidentiality as a requirement.  This
   implies that, in the absence of changes to the protocol as presently
   under development in the IETF's DNS Private Exchange (DPRIVE) working
   group, all DNS queries and answers generated by the activities of any
   protocol are available to the attacker.  When store-and-forward
   protocols are used (e.g., SMTP [RFC5321]), intermediaries leave this
   data subject to observation by an attacker that has compromised these
   intermediaries, unless the data is encrypted end-to-end by the
   application-layer protocol or the implementation uses an encrypted
   store for this data [RFC7624].


   -  Right to privacy

   -  Right to security

3.2.16.  Integrity

   Question(s): Does your protocol maintain, assure and/or verify the
   accuracy of payload data?  Does your protocol maintain and assure the
   consistency of data?  Does your protocol in any way allow for the
   data to be (intentionally or unintentionally) altered?

   Explanation: Integrity refers to the maintenance and assurance of the
   accuracy and consistency of data to ensure it has not been
   (intentionally or unintentionally) altered.

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

   Example: Integrity verification of data is important to prevent
   vulnerabilities and attacks, like man-in-the-middle-attacks.  These
   attacks happen when a third party (often for malicious reasons)
   intercepts a communication between two parties, inserting themselves
   in the middle changing the content of the data.  In practice this
   looks as follows:

   Alice wants to communicate with Bob.
   Corinne forges and sends a message to Bob, impersonating Alice.  Bob
   cannot see the data from Alice was altered by Corinne.
   Corinne intercepts and alters the communication as it is sent between
   Alice and Bob.
   Corinne is able to control the communication content.


   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to security

3.2.17.  Authenticity

   Question(s): Do you have sufficient measures to confirm the truth of
   an attribute of a single piece of data or entity?  Can the attributes
   get garbled along the way (see security)?  If relevant have you
   implemented IPsec, DNSsec, HTTPS and other Standard Security Best

   Explanation: Authenticity ensures that data does indeed come from the
   source it claims to come from.  This is important to prevent certain
   attacks or unauthorized access and use of data.

   Example: Authentication of data is important to prevent
   vulnerabilities and attacks, like man-in-the-middle-attacks.  These
   attacks happen when a third party (often for malicious reasons)
   intercepts a communication between two parties, inserting themselves
   in the middle and posing as both parties.  In practice this looks as

   Alice wants to communicate with Bob.
   Alice sends data to Bob.
   Corinne intercepts the data sent to Bob.
   Corinne reads (and potentially alters) the message to Bob.
   Bob cannot see the data did not come from Alice but from Corinne.

   When there is proper authentication the scenario would be as follows:

   Alice wants to communicate with Bob.

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

   Alice sends data to Bob.
   Corinne intercepts the data sent to Bob.
   Corinne reads and alters the message to Bob.
   Bob can see the data did not come from Alice but from Corinne.


   -  Right to privacy

   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to security

3.2.18.  Adaptability

   Question(s): Is your protocol written in such a way that is would be
   easy for other protocols to be developed on top of it, or to interact
   with it?  Does your protocol impact permissionless innovation?  See
   'Connectivity' above.

   Explanation: Adaptability is closely interrelated with permissionless
   innovation, both maintain the freedom and ability to freely create
   and deploy new protocols on top of the communications constructs that
   currently exist.  It is at the heart of the Internet as we know it,
   and to maintain its fundamentally open nature, we need to be mindful
   of the impact of protocols on maintaining or reducing permissionless
   innovation to ensure the Internet can continue to develop.

   Example: WebRTC generates audio and/or video data.  In order to
   ensure that WebRTC can be used in different locations by different
   parties it is important that standard Javascript APIs are developed
   to support applications from different voice service providers.
   Multiple parties will have similar capabilities, in order to ensure
   that all parties can build upon existing standards these need to be
   adaptable, and allow for permissionless innovation.


   -  Right to education

   -  Freedom of expression

   -  Freedom of assembly and association

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

3.2.19.  Outcome Transparency

   Question(s): Are the effects of your protocol fully and easily
   comprehensible, including with respect to unintended consequences of
   protocol choices?

   Explanation: certain technical choice may have unintended

   Example: lack of authenticity may lead to lack of integrity and
   negative externalities, of which spam is an example.  Lack of data
   that could be used for billing and accounting can lead to so-called
   "free" arrangements which obscure the actual costs and distribution
   of the costs, for example the barter arrangements that are commonly
   used for Internet interconnection; and the commercial exploitation of
   personal data for targeted advertising which is the most common
   funding model for the so-called "free" services such as search
   engines and social networks.

   Impacts: - Freedom of expression - Privacy - Freedom of assembly and
   association - Access to information

3.2.20.  Anonymity

   Question(s): Does you protocol make use of persistent identifiers?
   Can it be done without them?  If your protocol collects data and
   distributes it (see [RFC6235]), you should anonymize the data, but
   keep in mind that "anonymizing" data is notoriously hard.  Do not
   think that just dropping the last byte of an IP address "anonymizes"
   data.  If your protocol allows for identity management, there should
   be a clear barrier between the identities to ensure that they cannot
   (easily) be associated with each other.

   Explanation: Anonymity is an inherent part of the right to freedom of
   opinion and expression and the right to privacy.  Avoid adding
   identifiers, options or configurations that create or might lead to
   patterns or regularities that are not explicitely required by the

   Example: An example is DHCP where sending a persistent identifier as
   the client name was not mandatory but, in practice, done by many
   implementations, before [RFC7844].

4.  Document Status

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

5.  Acknowledgements

6.  Security Considerations

   As this document concerns a research document, there are no security

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

8.  Research Group Information

   The discussion list for the IRTF Human Rights Protocol Considerations
   Research Group is located at the e-mail address [1].
   Information on the group and information on how to subscribe to the
   list is at

   Archives of the list can be found at:

9.  References

9.1.  Informative References

   [BCP72]    IETF, "Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security
              Considerations", 2003, <

   [Bless]    Bless, R. and C. Orwat, "Values and Networks", 2015.

   [Brown]    Brown, I. and M. Ziewitz, "A Prehistory of Internet
              Governance", Research Handbook on Governance of the
              Internet. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar. , 2013.

   [FIArch]   "Future Internet Design Principles", January 2012,

              Geek Feminism Wiki, "Pseudonymity", 2015,

              Hill, R., "Partial Catalog of Human Rights Related to ICT
              Activities", 2014,

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                 [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

   [HTML5]    W3C, "HTML5", 2014, <>.

   [ICCPR]    United Nations General Assembly, "International Covenant
              on Civil and Political Rights", 1976,

   [ICESCR]   United Nations General Assembly, "International Covenant
              on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights", 1966,

   [IRP]      Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition, "10
              Internet Rights & Principles", 2014,

   [newegg]   Mullin, J., "Newegg on trial: Mystery company TQP rewrites
              the history of encryption", 2013, <

              IETF, "Note Well", 2015, <

              W3C, "W3C Patent Policy", 2004,

   [Penney]   Penney, J., "Chilling Effects: Online Surveillance and
              Wikipedia Use", 2016, <

              Pouwelse, Ed, J., "Media without censorship", 2012,

   [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
              RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <>.

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                 [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

   [RFC1958]  Carpenter, B., Ed., "Architectural Principles of the
              Internet", RFC 1958, DOI 10.17487/RFC1958, June 1996,

   [RFC1984]  IAB and IESG, "IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic
              Technology and the Internet", BCP 200, RFC 1984,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1984, August 1996, <https://www.rfc-

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,

   [RFC2277]  Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
              Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, DOI 10.17487/RFC2277,
              January 1998, <>.

   [RFC3365]  Schiller, J., "Strong Security Requirements for Internet
              Engineering Task Force Standard Protocols", BCP 61,
              RFC 3365, DOI 10.17487/RFC3365, August 2002,

   [RFC3724]  Kempf, J., Ed., Austein, R., Ed., and IAB, "The Rise of
              the Middle and the Future of End-to-End: Reflections on
              the Evolution of the Internet Architecture", RFC 3724,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3724, March 2004, <https://www.rfc-

   [RFC3935]  Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
              BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,

   [RFC3979]  Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
              Technology", RFC 3979, DOI 10.17487/RFC3979, March 2005,

   [RFC4033]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
              RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,

   [RFC4101]  Rescorla, E. and IAB, "Writing Protocol Models", RFC 4101,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4101, June 2005, <https://www.rfc-

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                 [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

   [RFC4941]  Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
              Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
              IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,

   [RFC4949]  Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
              FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,

   [RFC5321]  Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, October 2008, <https://www.rfc-

   [RFC5646]  Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying
              Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646,
              September 2009, <>.

   [RFC6108]  Chung, C., Kasyanov, A., Livingood, J., Mody, N., and B.
              Van Lieu, "Comcast's Web Notification System Design",
              RFC 6108, DOI 10.17487/RFC6108, February 2011,

   [RFC6235]  Boschi, E. and B. Trammell, "IP Flow Anonymization
              Support", RFC 6235, DOI 10.17487/RFC6235, May 2011,

   [RFC6365]  Hoffman, P. and J. Klensin, "Terminology Used in
              Internationalization in the IETF", BCP 166, RFC 6365,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6365, September 2011, <https://www.rfc-

   [RFC6701]  Farrel, A. and P. Resnick, "Sanctions Available for
              Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy", RFC 6701,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6701, August 2012, <https://www.rfc-

   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013, <https://www.rfc-

   [RFC7258]  Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
              Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258, May
              2014, <>.

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                 [Page 24]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

   [RFC7624]  Barnes, R., Schneier, B., Jennings, C., Hardie, T.,
              Trammell, B., Huitema, C., and D. Borkmann,
              "Confidentiality in the Face of Pervasive Surveillance: A
              Threat Model and Problem Statement", RFC 7624,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7624, August 2015, <https://www.rfc-

   [RFC7725]  Bray, T., "An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles",
              RFC 7725, DOI 10.17487/RFC7725, February 2016,

   [RFC7844]  Huitema, C., Mrugalski, T., and S. Krishnan, "Anonymity
              Profiles for DHCP Clients", RFC 7844,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7844, May 2016, <https://www.rfc-

   [RFC8280]  ten Oever, N. and C. Cath, "Research into Human Rights
              Protocol Considerations", RFC 8280, DOI 10.17487/RFC8280,
              October 2017, <>.

   [Saltzer]  Saltzer, J., Reed, D., and D. Clark, "End-to-End Arguments
              in System Design", ACM TOCS, Vol 2, Number 4, November
              1984, pp 277-288. , 1984.

   [UDHR]     United Nations General Assembly, "The Universal
              Declaration of Human Rights", 1948,

              United Nations Human Rights Council, "UN Human Rights
              Council Resolution "The promotion, protection and
              enjoyment of human rights on the Internet" (A/HRC/32/
              L.20)", 2016, <https://documents-dds-

              W3C, "Accessibility", 2015,

              W3C, "Localization vs. Internationalization", 2010,

ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                 [Page 25]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                    November 2017

              Zittrain, J., "The Future of the Internet - And How to
              Stop It", Yale University Press , 2008,

9.2.  URIs


Author's Address

   Niels ten Oever


ten Oever (editor)        Expires May 16, 2018                 [Page 26]