Following up on the in-room discussion regarding Human Rights Protocol
Considerations as compared to Security Considerations and other types of
considerations that appear in IETF documents:
I mentioned at the mic that we don't have any documents representing IETF
consensus that provide guidance
On 11/06/2018 09:01 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> Following up on the in-room discussion regarding Human Rights Protocol
> Considerations as compared to Security Considerations and other types of
> considerations that appear in IETF documents:
>
> I mentioned at the mic that we don't have any d
> -Original Message-
> From: regext On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 3:07 AM
> To: regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] "Considerations" Sections
>
> On 11/06/2018 09:01 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > Following up on the in-room discussion reg
On 11/6/18 9:22 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: regext On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 3:07 AM
>> To: regext@ietf.org
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] "Considerations" Sections
>>
>> On 11/06/2018 09:01 AM, Hollenbeck, Scot
> -Original Message-
> From: Niels ten Oever
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 3:36 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; 'regext@ietf.org'
>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] "Considerations" Sections
>
>
>
> On 11/6/18 9:22 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From
On 11/6/18 9:59 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Niels ten Oever
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 3:36 AM
>> To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; 'regext@ietf.org'
>>
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] "Considerations" Sections
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/6/18 9:22 AM, Hollenbe
> On Nov 6, 2018, at 4:32 PM, Niels ten Oever
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/6/18 9:59 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Niels ten Oever
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 3:36 AM
>>> To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; 'regext@ietf.org'
>>>
>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [r
On 11/6/18 1:00 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>
>> On Nov 6, 2018, at 4:32 PM, Niels ten Oever
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/6/18 9:59 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Niels ten Oever
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 3:36 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott ;
On 6/11/18 10:52 pm, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> On 11/6/18 1:00 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 2018, at 4:32 PM, Niels ten Oever
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/6/18 9:59 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Niels ten Oever
> Sent: Tuesday, No
KF I wonder if this is a useful observation. I havent heard anyone
suggest that a HRPC section is required, only that it seems very
appropriate for this draft. So it might be appropriate to focus on why
the section should be or should not be present in the context of how an
implementer might co
On 11/6/18 5:50 PM, Gould, James wrote:
> KF I wonder if this is a useful observation. I havent heard anyone
>
> suggest that a HRPC section is required, only that it seems very
>
> appropriate for this draft. So it might be appropriate to focus on why
>
> the section should be or should not be
Niels,
I belief inclusion of an HRPC section pulls policy into the draft that will add
confusion. We should attempt to pull policy out of the drafts and not go in
the other direction. Do you have an example of another draft or RFC that has
included such a section for reference?
—
JG
On 11/6/18 6:19 PM, Gould, James wrote:
> Niels,
>
> I belief inclusion of an HRPC section pulls policy into the draft that will
> add confusion.
Describing the implication of technologies on humans is not at all the same as
policy. This is also the standpoint of the IAB, as laid out in RFC69
Hello all,
I have a couple of points I wish to make on this thread.
1. With regards to author vs editor, in the most cases they are the
same person. The editor distinction is often made to assuage political
issues or to overcome obstacles related to document production, such
as the original autho
> -Original Message-
> From: Niels ten Oever
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 10:52 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] "Considerations" Sections
>
> On 11/6/18 1:00 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> >
> >> On Nov 6, 2018, at 4:32 PM, Niels t
On 7/11/18 1:19 am, Andrew Newton wrote:
>
> 2. In my opinion, I do not believe a human rights considerations
> section would negatively impact the readability of this draft if
> written properly. That said, the text put forward in the other thread
> is certainly not acceptable as it has the tone
There were 3 draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode items brought up by Gurshabad
Grover that I captured from the REGEXT Meeting:
1. Clarifying that it’s up to server policy to define the server action
taken when the verification code grace period expires
* I re-reviewed draft-ietf-regext
On 06/11/18 11:49 PM, Andrew Newton wrote:
> 2. In my opinion, I do not believe a human rights considerations
> section would negatively impact the readability of this draft if
> written properly. That said, the text put forward in the other thread
> is certainly not acceptable as it has the tone o
Looks like I missed an exciting session.
In article
you write:
>b) There is zero mention of the benefits that may come of this with
>regard to keeping criminals from using the domain infrastructure. For
>example, freedom from harassment seems like it would be a human right
Yes, that is in Artic
On 11/7/18 8:43 AM, John Levine wrote:
> Looks like I missed an exciting session.
>
> In article
> you
> write:
>> b) There is zero mention of the benefits that may come of this with
>> regard to keeping criminals from using the domain infrastructure. For
>> example, freedom from harassment see
20 matches
Mail list logo
