On 10/05/2018 03:59 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 03:24:08PM +0200, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>> We cannot simply wish political implications of our work away.
>
> Right, but I don't believe the HRPC work has suggested that things
> that have HR implications should _not be done_. They should be noted,
> and I'm all in favour of that. What you are arguing, however, is in
> line with the way the IETF ended up doing the BEHAVE WG: we wouldn't
> agree to consider NAT when it was first being worked on, so everyone
> did it their own way. Then we had 30 million different ways to
> achieve the same result, none of which worked with anything else, so
> we had to come up with a bunch of well-defined work arounds to get
> things to function together. It's not obvious that is an improvement.
>
The difference between NAT and 3rd party verification is that there was
a significant demand for the former, and not for the latter.
> I think it would be quite good for the document to note that it has
> the implications you are pointing to, which might be a reason for
> people not to embrace it. The downsides should be noted. But to me,
> if I have to weigh "undesirable political implications in an
> interoperable way, which might draw attention and increase the
> possibility of implementation" against "undesirable political
> implications in proprietary ways", I'm going to pick the former every
> time.
Does this mean that the only possible impact of a human rights review
could be recognition in an RFC ?
You seem to be arguing a technological deterministic standpoint here
along the lines of 'everything that is technically possible will happen
anyway, so its better to do it in an interoperable way'. Aside from it
being quite nihilist, I also think this is simply not true. By
standardizing certain solutions, and not standardizing others, we change
the development and uptake of technologies, especially if there is not a
large demand or an established practice.
Best,
Niels
--
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
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
