Re: [ietf-privacy] New Webiquette RFC

[Ted Hardie]

Howdy,


On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 9:18 PM  wrote:

> Thank you. I have oriented myself on this RFC:
>
>[RFC1855]  Hambridge, S., "Netiquette Guidelines", FYI 28, RFC 1855,
>   DOI 10.17487/RFC1855, October 1995,
>    
> .
>
>
> You will no doubt have noticed that this had both an RFC number and a
designation as an FYI.  The FYI series has since been concluded:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6360 describes the action.  This
is in part because that relevant part of the IETF (the User Services Area)
had also wound down.

Given the decisions above, it would be difficult to identify a group within
the IETF that could review an update to RFC 1855.

regards,

Ted Hardie




> On 17.04.22 22:12, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Perhaps if the author wishes the draft to proceed they will
> be happy to self-identify, or perhaps not. I'd not worry
> too much about the general problem 'till that's clear.
>
> The text of the draft itself seems innocuous enough. While
> I'm not clear what useful purpose might be served by having
> such text in an RFC, I'd be willing to be convinced but so
> far remain to be convinced.
>
> Process-wise, I'd say unless this were modified to address
> some IETF-specific issues (such as netiquette in developing
> protocols) it'd likely be better targeted to the IAB or
> ISE streams. (That's no reason to not discuss it here
> though.)
>
> ___
> ietf-privacy mailing list
> ietf-privacy@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
>
___
ietf-privacy mailing list
ietf-privacy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy

Re: [ietf-privacy] New Webiquette RFC

[Toerless Eckert]

On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 12:48:45PM -0700, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> The questions you refer to are not new.  The same issues (IPR policy
> conformance and hidden agendas) have been raised with respect to the
> affiliations of ‘consultants’ who are hired by clients who wish to remain
> anonymous.  AFAICT, the IETF has never required that consultants divulge
> their clients, even to the nomcom.

Indeed. And there is a wide range how open or secret those consultants are
in the IETF about their sources of financing. And while this may be all quite
well-known to IETF old-timers, it would be nice to even just document these
insights to IETF newcomers. And RFC like the one suggested might be a good
start, although it would expand from "recommendations" to a broader "fyi".

> Anonymous participation takes this trend one step further.  The W3C does
> not allow anonymous participation due to IPR concerns, but their IPR policy
> is also significantly different, since W3C is membership-based (and not
> particularly friendly to ‘consultants’ or small businesses).

> We might decide that this anonymous participation is one step too far, but
> my take is that IETF crossed an important line long ago.

IMHO there is still a relevant difference between complete anonymity and some 
degree
of tracability/accountability through some form of "public" intermediary.

Cheers
Toerless

> On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 12:15 Christian Huitema  wrote:
> 
> > This submission raises an interesting question for the IETF: how to
> > treat anonymous (or pseudonymous) submissions?
> >
> > On one hand, there are lots of classic reasons for hiding behind a
> > pseudonym when participating in public discussions. On the other hand,
> > the IETF has to be protected against intellectual property issues and
> > against sabotage by external groups.
> >
> > Before submissions are accepted for publication, their authors have to
> > disclose whether they, or their employer, own intellectual property
> > rights on the technologies described in the draft. Failure to disclose
> > would influence the prosecution of intellectual property disputes that
> > might arise when third parties implement the technology. This provides
> > some degree of protection to implementers. But when the submission
> > cannot be traced to a specific company, these protections disappear, and
> > we might have a problem. So this is one source of tension between
> > standards and anonymity.
> >
> > The other source of tension is the risk of sabotage. Various groups have
> > tried to sabotage the standard process in the past, for example to delay
> > the deployment of encryption, or to introduce exploitable bugs in
> > security standards -- some of these tactics were exposed in the Snowden
> > revelations. Anonymous participation could allow these groups to perform
> > such sabotage in untraceable ways, which is obviously not desirable.
> >
> > I think this issue of anonymous participation is worth discussing.
> >
> > -- Christian Huitema
> >
> >
> > On 4/17/2022 11:35 AM, kate_9023+...@systemli.org wrote:
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > I'm quite new at creating RFCs. I have recently submitted a draft for
> > > a new webiquette and I am still searching a group which will take care
> > > of it. It would fit into privacy as this new webiquette is dealing
> > > with new internet technology such as deepfakes, sharing photos of 3rd
> > > parties and so on and also deleting old information on a regular basis
> > > good behavior. It's also quite short with only 9 pages and also covers
> > > cancel culture and mobbing. I think a document like this is needed and
> > > important. Anyone here who'd like to take care or helping me making an
> > > RFC out of it? Or guide me in the right direction?
> > >
> > > The draft can be found here:
> > >
> > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rfcxml-general-the-new-webiquette-00.txt
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > >
> > > Kate
> > >
> > > ___
> > > ietf-privacy mailing list
> > > ietf-privacy@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
> >
> > ___
> > ietf-privacy mailing list
> > ietf-privacy@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
> >

> ___
> ietf-privacy mailing list
> ietf-privacy@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy


-- 
---
t...@cs.fau.de

___
ietf-privacy mailing list
ietf-privacy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy

Re: [ietf-privacy] New Webiquette RFC

[Toerless Eckert]

Intersting historic insight, thanks, Ted.

So, in summary: "The Internet is for End-Users, but the IETF is not" ?  ;-)

Sounds like a bit as if the state of IETF wrt. to what you write contradicts 
RFC8890.

Shouldn't be too difficult to attempt reviving FYI in some gen area WG
if we believed we actually wanted to do something about rfc8890 that 
does not well fit other areas.

Cheers
Toerless

On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 09:53:37AM +0100, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Howdy,
> 
> 
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 9:18 PM  wrote:
> 
> > Thank you. I have oriented myself on this RFC:
> >
> >[RFC1855]  Hambridge, S., "Netiquette Guidelines", FYI 28, RFC 1855,
> >   DOI 10.17487/RFC1855, October 1995,
> >    
> > .
> >
> >
> > You will no doubt have noticed that this had both an RFC number and a
> designation as an FYI.  The FYI series has since been concluded:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6360 describes the action.  This
> is in part because that relevant part of the IETF (the User Services Area)
> had also wound down.
> 
> Given the decisions above, it would be difficult to identify a group within
> the IETF that could review an update to RFC 1855.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Ted Hardie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > On 17.04.22 22:12, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps if the author wishes the draft to proceed they will
> > be happy to self-identify, or perhaps not. I'd not worry
> > too much about the general problem 'till that's clear.
> >
> > The text of the draft itself seems innocuous enough. While
> > I'm not clear what useful purpose might be served by having
> > such text in an RFC, I'd be willing to be convinced but so
> > far remain to be convinced.
> >
> > Process-wise, I'd say unless this were modified to address
> > some IETF-specific issues (such as netiquette in developing
> > protocols) it'd likely be better targeted to the IAB or
> > ISE streams. (That's no reason to not discuss it here
> > though.)
> >
> > ___
> > ietf-privacy mailing list
> > ietf-privacy@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
> >

> ___
> ietf-privacy mailing list
> ietf-privacy@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy


-- 
---
t...@cs.fau.de

___
ietf-privacy mailing list
ietf-privacy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy