Guidelines for Human Rights Protocol and Architecture Considerations
draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-21

(Via drafts-eval@iana.org): IESG/Authors:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-20 and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
IANA Operations Manager

IRSG Ballot completed with enough positions to progress. EKR also sent details comments that should be addressed. Returning to the document shepherd, to work with the authors to consider EKR's comments.

[Ballot comment]
Congratulations to the editors for getting the document to this point - it's been a long and occasionally painful journey but I do think the more contentious parts have been appropriately caveated, and it's ready for publication.

[Ballot comment]
I don't think this draft is perfect, but it's an improvement and worth publishing as part of the ongoing experiment.

Typo in 4.16: "Could it implemented to censor data or services?" - s/it/it be/ I guess.

The IRTF chair made a review of draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-10 after the draft gained RG consensus. In response to the IRTF chair review, the draft has been updated with extended examples for 'open standards', 'accessibility', and new text in 'decentralization' and 'connectivity'. Furthermore, new text was provided on the topic 'access to remedy' and 'reliability' where also a new examples were added. Finally, more detail was provided on the practice of human rights reviews.

In summary, this draft has grown out of a need that was established in 2017 to create a short and 'tried and tested' version of the guidelines that are provided in RFC 8280. This document has done just that. It has received extensive reviews and has reached consensus. The document has received a lot of comments and reviews, which is probably why the development of the document has taken roughly four years. Because of its goals, it is based on extensive use of RFC 8280. Thus in the review of documents in working groups, reviewers and as well as by draft authors, HRPC RG document RFC 8280 has been the touchstone. Furthermore there has been ample discussion about the inclusion of new guidelines, concerns and the interrelation between technical concepts. In particular there has been an obvious focus on human rights on the list. The document has received reviews from social scientists, protocol developers and network operators alike. The research group has spent ample time to achieve full consensus for this document. All comments received in last call were sufficiently dealt with by the authors. There is no known intellectual property written into the document.