Internet DRAFT - draft-doria-hrpc-report
draft-doria-hrpc-report
Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group A. Doria (ed)
Internet-Draft APC
Intended status: Informational March 21, 2016
Expires: September 22, 2016
HRPC - Report
draft-doria-hrpc-report-01
Abstract
This document presents an overview snapshot of the HRPC project to
map engineering concepts at the protocol level that may be related to
human rights, with a focus on the promotion and protection of the
freedom of expression and of association.
It provides a framework while reporting on the study including:
theoretical background, results and basic considerations. It will
reference the detailed work being done on terminlogy and case studies
documented in the research draft. It also folds in discussions from
the research literature. The documents, [HRPC-Research] and this
document, form an interrelated set that may later be combined into a
single document.
This draft is still in very early stages and welcomes further
contribution. Text is solicited.
Discussion on this draft at: hrpc@irtf.org //
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/admindb/hrpc
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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 September 22, 2016.
Doria (ed) Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft HRPC - Report March 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) 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.
Table of Contents
1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Internet
Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Link between protocols and human rights . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Related research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.1. David Clark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.2. Laura Denardis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.3. David Post . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.4. Jonathan Zittrain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Related theoretical discussions from the research group . 8
3.4.1. Principles from NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement 8
3.4.2. "Values and Networks" work by Roland Bless . . . . . 9
3.4.3. Value laden engineering as discussed in A case study
of codeing rights by Cath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. Internet protocols as a public good . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Methodological Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Possible areas for protocol considerations . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. Emergent Issues/Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Next steps for this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Doria (ed) Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft HRPC - Report March 2016
1. Background
Several reports from former United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on
the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and
expression, Frank La Rue, have made the relationship between the
Internet and human rights explicit and led to the approval of the
resolution "on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human
rights on the Internet" at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC). More
recently, it led to the resolution "The right to privacy in the
digital age" at the UN General Assembly. The NETmundial outcome
document [Netmundial] affirms that human rights, as reflected in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR], should underpin
Internet governance principles.
Although the application of human rights to Internet policy
consideratons has a firm rights' basis, a direct relation between
Internet architecture and protocols and human rights needs to be
established and requires both exploration and description. As the
full range of the interdependent and interrelated human rights would
be challenging as a starting place for discussions, the research
group has decided to start with the the rights of freedom of
expression and freedom of association and assembly.
An additional challenge in bringing the discussion of human rights
into Internet engineering discussions is the absence of an agreed
upon vocabulary for such discussions. Developing a vocabulary for
this discussion is a first requirement for the HRPC research effort.
It has been argued in [Liddicoat] that concerns for freedom of
expression and association were a strong part of the world-view of
the community involved in developing the first Internet protocols.
Whether by intention or by historical coincidence, the Internet was
designed with freedom and openness of communications as core values.
But as the scale, as well as internationalization and
commercialization of the Internet have grown, the influence of such
world-views has had to compete with other values, such as ease and
cost of development as well as the costs and difficulties in
maintaining and upgrading the network and network elements. The
purpose of this research is to discover and to document possible
considerations, that is issues to be considered, involved in taking
human rights into account when creating protocols.
Following the lead of work done for RFC 6973 [RFC6973] on Privacy
Consideration Guidelines, the premise of this research is that some
standards and protocols can either enable or threaten human rights on
the Internet.
Doria (ed) Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft HRPC - Report March 2016
As stated in RFC 1958 [RFC1958], the Internet aims to be the global
network of networks that provides unfettered connectivity to all
users at all times and for any content. Open, secure and reliable
connectivity is essential for rights such as freedom of expression
and freedom of association, as defined in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights [UDHR]. Therefore, considering connectivity as the
ultimate objective of the Internet makes a case that human rights are
core values of the architecture of the network.
The IETF has determined that an essential part of maintaining the
Internet as a tool for communication and connectivity is security.
Indeed, "development of security mechanisms is seen as a key factor
in the future growth of the Internet as a motor for international
commerce and communication" RFC 1984 [RFC1984] and according to the
Danvers Doctrine RFC 3365 [RFC3365], there is an overwhelming
consensus in the IETF that the best security should be used and
standardized.
In RFC 1984 [RFC1984], the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), the bodies which oversee
architecture and standards for the Internet, expressed: "concern by
the need for increased protection of international commercial
transactions on the Internet, and by the need to offer all Internet
users an adequate degree of privacy." Indeed, the IETF has been
doing a significant job in this area [RFC6973] and [RFC7258],
considering privacy concerns as a subset of security concerns.
[RFC6973]
The premise of this work is that it is possible to establish human
rights consideratons for other human rights, beyond just privacy.
This research builds on the the idea that protecting all rights is as
much a security concern in the Internet as is the protection of
privacy. The research also intends to document other bases for
consideration of human rights as core values in Internet
architectures and protocols.
This first phase of research focuses on freedom of expression and the
right to association and assembly online. In doing so, given the
interrelationship of all rights, other rights may be touched upon in
the discussion, but the primary emphasis will be to discover where
there are considerations that relate specicially to the freedoms of
expression and of association and assembly. In the first phase there
will also be a reliance on arguments based on security
considerations, though the effect of other values will be considered.
Doria (ed) Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft HRPC - Report March 2016
2. Terminology
The terminology being used in this project was defined in
[HRPC-GLOSSARY] and is applied in [HRPC-Research].
The process of developing a glossary has involved taking the variety
of glossaries defined by the IETF in its various RFCs, comparing the
terms both among the various RFC definitions and with terminology
used in human rights field to produce a synthesized set of
definitions after discussion in the research group. The goal is to
produce a set of terms, using existing terminology, that can assist
clear discussion among engineering experts and human rights experts.
At this point in the research this vocabulary has been provisionally
accepted in the research group.
The glossary also includes the definitions of some complex terms,
such as Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association, that relies
of several of the other defined terms. Some of these complex
defintions are still under discussion.
3. Theory
3.1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Internet
Architecture
This project is focused on two rights defined in the UDHR [UDHR],
Article 19 on Freedom of Expression and Article 20 of Freedom of
Association.
Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20 1 Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly
and association.
2 No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
3.2. Link between protocols and human rights
[HRPC-Research] includes defintions of the basic human rights in
terms of the engineering terminology. For example:
- Right to Freedom of Expression builds on definitions of
- Connectivity
Doria (ed) Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft HRPC - Report March 2016
- Privacy
- Security
- Content Agnosticism
- Internationalization
- Censorship resistance
- Open Standards
- Heterogeneity support
- Right to Association builds on the defintions of
- Connectivity
- Decentralization
- Censorship resistance
- Pseudonymity
- Anonymity
Detailed defintions of the included terms can be found in
[HRPC-Research]
When looking at protocols the considerations can apply from several
perspectives.
- The protocol's direct effects on human rights on the Internet.
- The protocol's direct effect on human rights in combination with
other protocols
- The effect of specific protocol elements, separately or in
combination with other protocol elements on human rights on the
Internet
- The ability to determine when various effects are occurring, i.e.
transparency
- The effect of deployment or non deployment of protocol features.
While this may be may seem beyond the protocol itself, often the
design of protocol, its difficulty in implementation and the
degree to which it contains required elements, poison pills or
Doria (ed) Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft HRPC - Report March 2016
other protocol artifacts that either encourage or discourse
implementation or deployment, can be significant in the overall
human rights affect of a protocol.
(Editor's note: Several key pieces of research are discussed in this
section. Readers/reviewers of the draft who have other recommended
sources for relevant research that should be discussed in this
document are invited to submit such for inclusion.)
3.3. Related research
This section will look at the theoretical work that has been done in
the are of rights and protocols. It will include the academic
research on the topic including the work of David Post [Post],
Jonathan Zittrain [Zittrain] and David Clark, among others.
3.3.1. David Clark
TBD
3.3.2. Laura Denardis
In Protocol Politics [Denardis09] Denardis discusses "how values
enter, or should enter, Internet protocol design." She describes the
"IETF process itself self-consciously expresses certain values." The
discussion goes on to define some examples of of IETF values,
including:
- "Universality and competitive openness - one objective of
developing a standard is for it to become widely used in the
marketplace;
- "participatory openness in the standards=setting process;
- "the end-to-end architectural design principle specifying that
intelligence should be located at network end points rather than
in media res."
To demonstrate the point, she presents a case study where engineers
at the IETF "identified privacy as a value pertinent to IPv6 address
design and embedded this design into design choices" with a detailed
description of the issue of including Ethernet Addresses as part of
the IPv6 address culminating in the design of IPv6 privacy features
and changes. Interestingly she also describes how the IETF
engineering community was aware of the privacy challenges, the rights
challenges, before media and government discovered the problem and
were working on the problem before the fire firestorm began.
Doria (ed) Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft HRPC - Report March 2016
The description ended with the following: "this episode is a reminder
that some of the most critical Internet governance questions concern
individual civil liberties and that design decisions can present an
opportunity to advance libertarian and democratic values or to
contain these values. IPv6 privacy design implications and value-
conscious design choices reinforce the notion that Internet
architecture and virtual resources cannot be understood only through
the lens of technical efficiency, scarcity, or economic competition
but as an embodiment of human values with social and cultural
effects."
3.3.3. David Post
TBD
3.3.4. Jonathan Zittrain
TBD
3.4. Related theoretical discussions from the research group
3.4.1. Principles from NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement
NETmundial was a bell-weather event held in October 2014, where
stakeholders from academia, business, civil society, governments and
the technical community came together to discuss Principles and a
Roadmap for Internet governance. While the Principles did not
address protocol development specifically, they did include a
principle on Open Standards:
"Internet governance should promote open standards, informed by
individual and collective expertise and decisions made by rough
consensus, that allow for a global, interoperable, resilient, stable,
decentralized, secure, and interconnected network, available to all.
Standards must be consistent with human rights and allow development
and innovation." [Netmundial]
The NETmundial Roadmap on the other hand was a bit more specific on
certain topics including digital security and arbitrary surveillance:
- "Initiatives to improve cybersecurity and address digital security
threats should involve appropriate collaboration among
governments, private sector, civil society, academia and technical
community. There are stakeholders that still need to become more
involved with cybersecurity, for example, network operators and
software developers."
Doria (ed) Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft HRPC - Report March 2016
- "Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines trust in the Internet
and trust in the Internet governance ecosystem. Collection and
processing of personal data by state and non-state actors should
be conducted in accordance with international human rights law.
More dialogue is needed on this topic at the international level
using forums like the Human Rights Council and IGF aiming to
develop a common understanding on all the related aspects."
[Netmundial]
3.4.2. "Values and Networks" work by Roland Bless
TBD
3.4.3. Value laden engineering as discussed in A case study of codeing
rights by Cath
This work discusses four basic architectural principles that are
encoded in Internet Technology:
- Openness, Permissionless Innovation, and Content Agnosticism
- Interoperability
- Redundancy and the Distributed Architecture
- The End-to-End Principle
The work by Cath explores the relationship of the architectural
principles to the human right of freedom of expression and asks
whether the IETF has a repsonsiblity toward human rights. The paper
shows that that there are numerous references to normative principles
among the body of work of the IETF. It argues that this provides the
necessary indication that ethics are within the purview of IETF
considerations. The research question asked by the work is: "Should
the right to freedom of speech be instantiated in the protocols and
standards of the Internet Engineering Task Force?" This quetion is
similar to the questions being asked in this research group.
Despite this ethical basis in Internet potocols, in Cath's work the
threat of fragmentation by countries that do not accept human rights
suggests that an answer to the normative research question is
negative: support for human rights should not be intitiated in the
Internet in order to avoid fragmentation. This can be understood to
mean that care must be taken to turning protocols into political
targets. On the other hand the principles that are encoded in the
Internet do make it better at enabling rights. This encourages work
such as the work done for privacy consideration in the IETF and the
research being done on protocol consideration for the freedoms of
Doria (ed) Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft HRPC - Report March 2016
expression and association, as long as these are just considerations
and not requirements. The paper cautions against using protocols to
achieve advocacy goals.
3.5. Internet protocols as a public good
While not specifically part of the research, a background theoretical
discussion in Internet rights involves discussion of whether the
Internet is a public good. The economic definitons of a public good
includes requirements that it be non-excludable, in that it is a good
that cannot be withheld from any individual, and that it be non-
rivalous, meaning that its use by some does not preclude its use by
others.
Strictily speaking, the Internet does not meet these requirements.
The fact that much of the world still does not have Internet access
shows that it is excludable, as many are still excluded. Addtionally
the fact that service providers charge for Internet access point to
access not being a public good. In terms of rivalry, bandwidth and
scalability issues give another indication that the Internet does not
qualify as a public good, one person's usage can interefe with
another person's usage. Some have argued that the Internet is a
Common Pool Resource (CPR), as defined by Ostrum [Ostrum]. This
claim has yet to be substantiated, as the Interent needs to satisfy
various design principles to qualify as a CPR. Discussion of this
issue is beyond the scope of this draft. (Editor's note: Though it
could be included it people felt it would be useful content for
references' sake.)
While the discussion on whether the Internet itself, as an
infrastrucure, is either a public good or CPR, is open and
contentious, it may be simpler to establish whether the set of core
Internet protocols is a public good. This is relavant to the
research in this group dealing with protocol considerations. It can
be argued that for Internet protocols to be non-excludable, it has to
be possible for everyone to use them. It is. Through the use of the
core Internet protocols, anyone can create a network that connects
into the Internet. While some protocols are encumbered by property
rights and licensing requirements, a core set of protocols that are
not encumberd, and thus freely avaialble to all, can be described as
non-excludable. It also seems clear that one party's proper use of
the core set of Internet protocols does not have the effect of
precluding use by others, so protocols can also be called non-
rivalrous. One question relevant to the question of Internet
protocols as a common good will involve determining whether a
sufficient set of the core protocols essential to the Internet, are
fully unencumbered.
Doria (ed) Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft HRPC - Report March 2016
Establising that Internet protocols are a public good adds an
economic development consideration to the discussions and provides
possible avenues for basing human rights protocol consideraton on
more that just security, allowing other bases for discussion of the
trades off in considerations when designing or deploying a protocol.
The question still needs further exploriation to determine whether
Internet protocols as a public good has any effect on the protocol
considerations to be recommended by this group.
4. Methodology
Some compnents of the methodology are defined in detail in Research
into Human Rights Protocol Considerations [HRPC-Research].
The purpose of the work is to map the potential relations between
human rights and protocols so that considerations can be derived.
- the first step involved scoping the research problem
- Translating Human Rights Concept into Technical Definitions
o Mapping protocols and standards related to Freedom of
Expression and Freedom of Assembly as defined in human rights
covenants and agreements
o Extracting concepts from any and all RFCs that use and define
these terms
o Building the common glossary to be used linking engineering and
human rights concepts
- Discovering cases of protocols that have an effect on human rights
o Enablers of rights
o Enablers of abuse
- Working though the cases to determine and describe the issues that
affect human rights
- Applying the human rights technical definitions to the cases
- Derivation of possible considerations
Doria (ed) Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft HRPC - Report March 2016
4.1. Case Studies
The case studies and their initial status is being documented in
[HRPC-Research].
In each of the case studies, the behavior of the protocols is
analysed for its positive and negative effects. In some case these
effects are due to the design of the protocol itself, in others they
may be due to existing or absent features. In protocls with optional
features, whether a feature is implemented or deployed, can be a
factor in the protocol's impact on human rights.
The analysis on the following protocols are currently being discussed
on HRPC list and being described in [HRPC-Research].
- IP
Covering issues concerning the network visibility of source and
destination, address translation and mobility
- DNS
- HTTP
o HTTP code 451
- XMPP
- Peer to peer
- VPN
- Middleboxes
- DDOS
4.2. Methodological Issues
The current methodology is based on discourse analysis and
ethnographic research methods. This method is explained in
[HRPC-Research]. While this is a good basis for initial discovery,
further analysis is needed on whether the hypotheses formed as a
result of the case studies can be abstracted to general consideration
statements. Study is also needed to determine whether evidence for
similar effects can be shown as a result of applying the general
considerations to a wider set of protocols. A full analysis also
requires that some attempt be made to test any candidate
considerations for other effects and for unintended consequences.
Doria (ed) Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft HRPC - Report March 2016
5. Possible areas for protocol considerations
Using the definitions derived for the rights of freedom of expression
and freedom of association and assembly, and the protocol attributes
discovered in the use cases, a set of questions is being developed
that enable a protocol designer to consider whether their design has
any positive or negative effects on the human rights in question.
The questions should also give guidance in terms of protocol
atributes that can aid in creating new protocols that enable as
opposed to hinder human rights.
[HRPC-Research] includes a first take on such questions. This work
is still at an early stage. There have been recommendations in the
list that the form of the questions be based on best practices for
questionnaire development. The questions will need to be tested as
outlined above in the section on methodological issues, to determine
whether they are fit for general purpose in an engineering context.
5.1. Emergent Issues/Questions
This section records some of the question opened in discussion of the
group that open broader questions that those centered on protocol
considerations. Often the question involved the manner in which the
protocols are deployed or used.
- Can DDOS be considered freedom of expression when used for
advocacy? Even if it does, does this matter? Is interruption of
communication in the Internet such a negative aspect that it is
never acceptable? Is DDOS a moral equivalent to "capital"
infractions in that its use is never permitted by Human Rights
under any situation. Or is it a valid method that can be used for
advocacy?
- How do we differentiate between protocol effects that are inherent
to the protocol and those that arise from implementation, misuse
or from avoidance of non mandatory features. This includes
factoring for lack of proper maintenance or software updating.
Differentiating these effects from each other is important in
designing the considerations.
6. Next Steps
As discussed in the methodoloy section, a set of tests needs to be
undertaken to determine whether the protocol attributes that have
been isolated from the various use cases can be abstracted and tested
in situation other than in those test cases.
Doria (ed) Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft HRPC - Report March 2016
Once this is done, the set of considerations can be drafted and
discussed by the research group.
The current revision of [HRPC-Research] includes a first set of
possible considerations.
6.1. Next steps for this document
- Continue to add discussions of various threortical work related to
the issue
- Continue to report on the state of research.
The document will next be udated after IETF 95.
7. Acknowledgements
A section that include the many contributors of text as as commenters
and those who are assisitng this project in existing. Some of the
names: Niels ten Oever, Joana Varon, Catherine Cath, Daniel Kahn
Gillmor, ... more to be added ... and the all the particpants in the
research group.
8. IANA considerations
There shouldn't be any.
9. Security Considerations
There shouldn't be any.
10. Informative References
[Blumenthal]
Blumenthal, M. and D. Clark, "Rethinking the design of the
Internet The end-to-end arguments vs. the brave new
world", ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, Vol. 1,
No. 1, August 2001, pp 70-109. , 2001.
[Cath] Cath, C., "A case study of codeing rights", 2015.
[Clark] Clark, D., "The Design Philosophy of the DARPA Internet
Protocols", Proc SIGCOMM 88, ACM CCR Vol 18, Number 4,
August 1988, pp. 106-114. , 1988.
[Denardis09]
Denardis, L., "Protocol Politics", 2013.
Doria (ed) Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft HRPC - Report March 2016
[Denardis14]
Denardis, L., "The Global War for Internet Goverance",
2014.
[HRPC-GLOSSARY]
ten Oever, N., Doria, A., and D. Gillmor, "Human Rights
Protocol Considerations Glossary", 2015,
<https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-dkg-hrpc-glossary-00.txt>.
[HRPC-Method]
Varon, J. and C. Cath, "Human Rights Protocol
Considerations Methodology", 2015,
<https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-varon-hrpc-methodology-
00.txt>.
[HRPC-Research]
ten Oever, N. and C. Cath, "Research into Human Rights
Protocol Considerations", 2015, <https://www.ietf.org/
internet-drafts/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-00.txt>.
[Liddicoat]
Liddicoat, J. and A. Doria, "Human Rights and Internet
Protocols", n.d., <https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/human-
rights-and-internet-protocols-comparing-proc>.
[Netmundial]
"NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement", 2014,
<http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/
NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf>.
[Ostrum] Ostrum,, E., "Governing the Commons", 1990.
[Post] Post, D., "Internet Infrastructure and IP Censorship",
2015, <http://www.ipjustice.org/digital-rights/
internet-infrastructure-and-ip-censorship-bydavid-post/>.
[RFC1958] Carpenter, B., Ed., "Architectural Principles of the
Internet", RFC 1958, DOI 10.17487/RFC1958, June 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1958>.
[RFC1984] IAB and , "IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic
Technology and the Internet", BCP 200, RFC 1984,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1984, August 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1984>.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.
Doria (ed) Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft HRPC - Report March 2016
[RFC2639] Hastings, T. and C. Manros, "Internet Printing
Protocol/1.0: Implementer's Guide", RFC 2639,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2639, July 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2639>.
[RFC2919] Chandhok, R. and G. Wenger, "List-Id: A Structured Field
and Namespace for the Identification of Mailing Lists",
RFC 2919, DOI 10.17487/RFC2919, March 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2919>.
[RFC3365] Schiller, J., "Strong Security Requirements for Internet
Engineering Task Force Standard Protocols", BCP 61,
RFC 3365, DOI 10.17487/RFC3365, August 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3365>.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, August 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.
[RFC5891] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in
Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5891, August 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5891>.
[RFC5892] Faltstrom, P., Ed., "The Unicode Code Points and
Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)",
RFC 5892, DOI 10.17487/RFC5892, August 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5892>.
[RFC5893] Alvestrand, H., Ed. and C. Karp, "Right-to-Left Scripts
for Internationalized Domain Names for Applications
(IDNA)", RFC 5893, DOI 10.17487/RFC5893, August 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5893>.
[RFC6162] Turner, S., "Elliptic Curve Algorithms for Cryptographic
Message Syntax (CMS) Asymmetric Key Package Content Type",
RFC 6162, DOI 10.17487/RFC6162, April 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6162>.
[RFC6783] Levine, J. and R. Gellens, "Mailing Lists and Non-ASCII
Addresses", RFC 6783, DOI 10.17487/RFC6783, November 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6783>.
Doria (ed) Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft HRPC - Report March 2016
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
[RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
[RFC7232] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests", RFC 7232,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7232, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7232>.
[RFC7234] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching",
RFC 7234, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7234>.
[RFC7235] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7235, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7235>.
[RFC7236] Reschke, J., "Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
Authentication Scheme Registrations", RFC 7236,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7236, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7236>.
[RFC7237] Reschke, J., "Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
Method Registrations", RFC 7237, DOI 10.17487/RFC7237,
June 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7237>.
[RFC7258] Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258, May
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258>.
[UDHR] United Nations General Assembly, "The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights", 1948,
<http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/>.
Doria (ed) Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft HRPC - Report March 2016
[Zittrain]
Zittrain, J., "The Future of the Internet And How to Stop
It", 2008.
Author's Address
Avri Doria
APC
EMail: avri@apc.org
Doria (ed) Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 18]