Network Working Group Adrian Farrel IETF Internet Draft Olddog Consulting Proposed Status: Informational Expires: April 2004 November 2004 draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt Requirements for Morality Sections in Routing Area Drafts Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Abstract It has often been the case that morality has not been given proper consideration in the design and specification of protocols produced within the Routing Area. This has led to a deline in the moral values within the Internet and attempts to retrofit a suitable moral code to implemented and deployed protocols has been shown to be sub-optimal. This document specifies the requirement for all new Routing Area Internet-Drafts to include a "Morality Considerations" section, and gives guidance on what that section should contain. Farrel Page 1 draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt October 2004 Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. The key words "SHALT", "SHALT NOT", "SMITE", and "PILLAR OF SALT" in this document are to be interpreted as expected. 1. Introduction It is well accepted by popular opinion and other reliable metrics that moral values are in decline and that degeneracy is on the increase. Young people are particularly at risk from the rising depravity in society and much of the blame for this can be placed squarely at the door of the Internet. When new protocols or protocol extensions are developed within the Routing Area, it is often the case that not enough consideration is given to the impact on the moral fiber of the Internet that the protocols cause. The result is that moral consequences are only understood once the protocols have been implemented and sometimes not until after they have been deployed. The resultant attempts to restore the appropriate behavior and purge the community of improper activities are not always easy or architecturally pleasant. Further, it is possible that certain protocol designs make morality particularly hard to achieve. Recognising that moral issues are fundamental to the utility and success of protocols designed within the IETF, and that simply making a wishy-washy liberal-minded statement does not necessarily provide adequate guarantees of a correct and proper outcome for society, this document defines requirements for the inclusion of Morality Considerations sections in all Internet-Drafts produced within the Routing Area. Meeting these requirements will ensure that proper consideration is given to moral issues at all stages of the protocol development process from Requirements and Architecture, through Specification and Applicability. The remainder of this document describes what subsections are needed within a Morality Considerations section, and gives advice and guidance about what information should be contained in those subsections. Farrel Page 2 draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt October 2004 2. Presence and Placement of Morality Considerations Sections 2.1. Null Morality Considerations Sections It may be the case that the authors of Internet-Drafts have no or few morals. This does not relieve them of the need to understand the consequences of their actions. The more likely an author is to say that a null Morality Considerations section is acceptable, the more pressure must be exerterd on him by the Area and the appropriate Working Group to ensure that he gives full consideration to his actions, and reflects long and hard on the consequences of his writing and the value of his life. On the other hand, some authors are well known to have the highest moral pedigree: a fact that is plainly obvious from the company they keep, the Working Groups they attend, and their eligibility for NomCom. It is clearly unnecessary for such esteemed persons to waste effort on Morality Consideration sections. It is inconceivable that anything that they write would have anything other than a beneficial effect on the Routing Area and the Internet in general. 2.2. Mandatory Subsections If the Morality Considerations section is present, it MUST contain at least the following subsections. The content of these subsections is surely self-evident to any right-thinking person. Further guidance can be obtained from your moral guardian, your household gods, or from any member of the IMM (Internet Moral Majority). - Likelihood of misuse by depraved or sick individuals. This subsection must fully address the possiblity that the proposed protocols or protocol extensions might be used for the distribution of blue, smutty or plain disgusting images. - Likelihood of misuse by misguided individuals. There is an obvious need to protect minors and people with misguided thought processes from utilising the protocols or protocol extensions for purposes that would inevitably do them harm. - Likelihood of misuse by large, multi-national corporations. Such a thought is, of course, unthinkable. - Availablity of oversight facilities. There are those who would corrupt our morals motivated as they are by a hatred of the freedom of Internet access with which we are graced. We place a significant burden of responsibility on those who guard our community from these evil-doers and it is only fitting that we give them as much support as is possible. Therefore, all encryption and obfuscation techniques MUST be excluded - no-one who has nothing to hide need fear the oversight of those whose morals are beyond doubt. Farrel Page 3 draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt October 2004 - Inter-SDO impact. We must allow for other moral frameworks and fully respect other people's right to subscribe to other belief systems. Such people are, however, wrong and doomed to spend eternity in a dark corner with only dial-up access. So it has been written. - Care and concern for avian carriers. A duck may be somebody's mother. In the event that one or more of these subsections is considered to be not relevant, it MUST still be present, and MUST contain a full rebuttal of this deviant thought. 2.3. Optional Subsections Additional subsections may be added to accommodate zealots. 2.4. Placement of Morality Considerations Sections The Morality Considerations section MUST be given full prominence in each Internet Draft. 3. Morality Considerations The moral pedigree of the author of this draft places him and his writings beyond question. 4. IANA Considerations IANA should think carefully about the protection of their immortal souls. 5. Security Considerations Security is of the utmost important. A secure Internet community will ensure the security of all of its members. 6. Acknowledgements I would like to thank my guru Alex Dipandra-Zinin. No avian carriers were harmed in the production of this document. Farrel Page 4 draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt October 2004 7. Intellectual Property Considerations Property is theft. What is yours is mine. What is mine, you keep your hands off. The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 8. Normative References I don't need to be told how to formulate my morals. 9. Informative References To be frank, I don't find many other documents informative. 10. Author's Address Adrian Farrel Old Dog Consulting Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk Phone: I'm not telling you that. 11. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Farrel Page 5