idnits 2.17.1 draft-irtf-hrpc-political-07.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (September 28, 2019) is 1672 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 638 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 640 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 642 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 196 (Obsoleted by RFC 221) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 542 (Obsoleted by RFC 765) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group N. ten Oever 3 Internet-Draft University of Amsterdam 4 Intended status: Informational September 28, 2019 5 Expires: March 31, 2020 7 Notes on networking standards and politics 8 draft-irtf-hrpc-political-07 10 Abstract 12 The IETF cannot ordain what standards or protocols are to be used on 13 networks, but the standards development process in the IETF does have 14 an impact on society through its normative standards setting process. 15 This document aims to bring about a better understanding on the 16 political nature of standards and protocols. Among other things, the 17 IETF's work affects what is perceived as technologically possible and 18 useful where networking technologies are being deployed, and its 19 standards reflect what is considered by the technical community to be 20 feasible and good practice. Whereas there might not be agreement 21 among the Internet protocol community on the specific political 22 nature of the technological development process and its outputs, it 23 is generally agreed that standards and protocols are both products of 24 a political process, and they can also be used for political means. 26 Status of This Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 34 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 31, 2020. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the Simplified BSD License. 58 Table of Contents 60 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 61 2. Vocabulary Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 3. Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 4. Technology and Politics: a review of literature and community 64 positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 4.1. Technology is value neutral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 4.2. Some protocols are political sometimes . . . . . . . . . 6 67 4.3. All protocols are political sometimes . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 4.4. The network of networks has its own logic and values . . 6 69 4.5. Protocols are inherently political . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 71 6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 72 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 73 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 74 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 75 10. Research Group Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 76 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 77 11.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 78 11.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 79 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 81 1. Introduction 83 "Standards are recipes for reality." 85 - Lawrence Busch 87 "As standards emerge from contested contexts, that 88 immediately function as a means of control within the 89 political and economic order." 91 - Andrew L. Russell 93 "The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF." 95 -{{RFC3935}} 97 Recently there has been increased discussion in the IRTF and IETF on 98 the relation between Internet protocols and human rights [RFC8280], 99 which spurred discussion of the value neutrality and political nature 100 of standards. The network infrastructure is on the one hand 101 designed, described, developed, standardized and implemented by the 102 Internet community, while on the other hand the Internet community 103 and Internet users are affected by the technology. Companies, 104 citizens, governments, standards development bodies, public opinion 105 and public interest groups all play a part in these discussions. 106 This document outlines different views on the relation between 107 politics, standards, and protocols, and seeks explore the question 108 whether standards and protocols are political, and if so, how. 110 This question in not necessarily a new one. The design of the 111 Internet, and its codification through protocols and standards, is a 112 technical issue with great political and economic impacts, as is 113 described in [RFC0613] and [RFC3271]. The early Internet community 114 already realized that it needed to make decisions on political issues 115 such as: 117 - internationalization, expanding the network outside of the United 118 States [BramanI]; 120 - access, how people are able to access the network, and who has 121 control [RFC0101]; 123 - privacy and security, what level of secrecy should be considered 124 and expected on the network [BramanIII]; 126 as well as use of the network by different groups with different 127 needs and requirements, such as: 129 - the military [RFC0164] [RFC0316]; 131 - governments [RFC0144] [RFC0286] [RFC0313] [RFC0542] [RFC0549]; 133 - and non-governmental entities [RFC0196]. 135 Sandra Braman has foregrounded these political consideration in 136 historical RFC in her extensively analysis of these documents 137 [BramanII]. This document seeks to understand how this is relevant 138 for current day Internet standardization and protocol design. The 139 coordinating of transnational stakeholders in a process of 140 negotiation and agreement through the development of common rules is 141 a form of global governance [Nadvi]. Standards are among the 142 mechanisms by which this governance is achieved, although this 143 process is not exclusively undertaken by transnational corporations. 144 Conformance to certain standards is often a basic condition of 145 participation so there are strong economic and political incentives 146 to conform, even in the absence of legal requirements [Russell]. 148 This documents builds on that research and seeks to increase 149 understanding about what this means in the context of Internet 150 protocols and the entities that design, develop, and standardize 151 them. 153 2. Vocabulary Used 155 Politics (from Greek: Politika: Politika, definition "affairs of the 156 commons") is the process of making decisions applying to all 157 members of a diverse group with conflicting interests. More 158 narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of 159 governance or organized control over a community. Furthermore, 160 politics is the study or practice of the distribution of power and 161 resources within a given community as well as the 162 interrelationship(s) between communities. (adapted from 163 [HagueHarrop]) 165 Affordances The possibilities that are provided to an actor through 166 the ordering of an environment by a technology. This means that a 167 technology does not determine what is possible, but that it 168 invites specific kinds of behavior, and in that process shapes the 169 behavior of users, without aboslutely determining it. 171 Protocols 'Protocols are rules governing communication between 172 devices or applications, and the creation or manipulation of any 173 logical or communicative artifacts concomitant with such 174 communication.' [Sisson] 176 Standards 'A standard is an agreed-upon way of doing something or 177 measuring something.' [Sisson] 179 Internet Standards 'An Internet Standard is a specification that is 180 stable and well-understood, is technically competent, has 181 multiple, independent, and interoperable implementations with 182 substantial operational experience, enjoys significant public 183 support, and is recognizably useful in some or all parts of the 184 Internet.' [RFC2026] 186 3. Research Question 188 To bring about a better understanding on the political nature of 189 standards and protocols, this documents asks the questions: If, and 190 if so how, are protocols, standards, and politics interrelated? 191 Exploring this question aims to inform discussions in the IETF, IRTF, 192 and the wider Internet infrastructure and architecture community. 194 4. Technology and Politics: a review of literature and community 195 positions 197 In 1993 the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility stated 198 that 'the Internet should meet public interest objectives'. 199 Similarly, [RFC3935] states that 'The Internet isn't value-neutral, 200 and neither is the IETF.'. Ethics and the Internet was already a 201 topic of an RFC by the IAB in 1989 [RFC1087], when the Internet was 202 still looking entirely different. Nonetheless there has been a 203 recent uptick in discussions within the IETF and IRTF about the 204 impact of Internet protocols on human rights [RFC8280], and more 205 generally in public debate about the impact of technology on society. 207 This document aims to provide an overview of the spectrum of 208 different positions that have been observed in the IETF and IRTF 209 community, and have been observed during interviews, mailinglist 210 exchanges, and during research group sessions. These positions were 211 observed during participatory observation, through 39 interviews with 212 members of the community, the Human Rights Protocol Considerations 213 Research Group mailing list, and during and after the Technical 214 Plenary on Protocols and Human Rights during IETF98. 216 Without judging them on their internal or external consistency they 217 are represented here. Where possible we also sought to engage with 218 the academic literature on this topic. 220 4.1. Technology is value neutral 222 This position starts from the premise that the technical and 223 political are differentiated fields and that technology is 'value 224 free'. This is also put more explicitly by Carey: "electronics is 225 neither the arrival of apocalypse nor the dispensation of grace. 226 Technology is technology; it is a means for communication and 227 transportation over space, and nothing more." [Carey]. In this view 228 protocols only become political when it is actually being used by 229 humans. So the technology itself is not political, the use of the 230 technology is. This view sees technology as instrument; 231 "technologies are 'tools' standing ready to serve the purposes of 232 their users. Technology is deemed 'neutral,' without valuative 233 content of its own.'" [Feenberg]. Feenberg continues: "technology is 234 not inherently good or bad, and can be used to whatever political or 235 social ends desired by the person or institution in control. 236 Technology is a 'rational entity' and universally applicable. One 237 may make exceptions on moral grounds, but one must also understand 238 that the "price for the achievement of environmental, ethical, or 239 religious goals...is reduced efficiency." [Feenberg]. 241 4.2. Some protocols are political sometimes 243 This stance is a pragmatic approach to the problem. It states that 244 some protocols under certain conditions can themselves have a 245 political dimension. This is different from the claim that a 246 protocol might sometimes be used in a political way; that view is 247 consistent with the idea of the technology being neutral (for the 248 human action using the technology is where the politics lies). 249 Instead, this position implies that protocols could be evaluated for 250 its political dimension, in order to understand the extent to which 251 it is political. 253 4.3. All protocols are political sometimes 255 While not an absolutist standpoint it recognizes that all design 256 decisions are subject to the law of unintended consequences, 257 especially in a context where the interrelation between protocols is 258 hard to predict. The system consisting of the Internet and its users 259 is vastly complex; it is chaotic in nature; standards are voluntary; 260 and therefore its emergent properties cannot be predicted. This 261 concept strongly hinges on the general purpose aspect of information 262 technology and its malleability. Whereas not all (potential) 263 behaviours, affordances and impacts of protocols can possibly be 264 predicted, one could, as a point of departure, consider the impact of 265 proposed implementations. 267 4.4. The network of networks has its own logic and values 269 While humans create technologies, this does not mean that they are 270 forever under human control. A technology, once created, has its own 271 logic that is independent of the human actors that either create or 272 use the technology. 274 From this perspective, technologies can shape the world. As Martin 275 Heidegger says, "The hydroelectric plant is not built into the Rhine 276 River as was the old wooden bridge that joined bank with bank for 277 hundreds of years. Rather the river is dammed up into the power 278 plant. What the river is now, namely, a water power supplier, 279 derives from out of the essence of the power station." [Heidegger] 280 (p 16) The dam in the river changes the world in a way the bridge 281 does not, because the dam alters the nature of the river. 283 In the same way - in another and more recent example - the very 284 existence of automobiles imposes physical forms on the world 285 different from those that come from the electric tram or the horse- 286 cart. The logic of the automobile means speed and the rapid covering 287 of distance, which encourages suburban development and a tendency 288 toward conurbation. But even if that did not happen, widespread 289 automobile use requires paved roads, and parking lots and structures. 290 These are pressures that come from the automotive technology itself, 291 and would not arise without that technology. 293 In much same way, then, networking technology, such as protocols, 294 creates its own demands. One of the most important conditions for a 295 protocol's success is its incremental deployability [RFC5218]. This 296 means that the network already contains constraints on what can be 297 deployed into it. In this sense the network of networks creates its 298 own paths, but also has its own objective. According to this view 299 the goal of the network of networks is interconnection and 300 connectivity; more connectivity is good for the network of networks. 301 Proponents of this positions also often describe the Internet as an 302 organism with its own unique ecosystem. 304 In this position it is not necessarily clear where the 'social' ends 305 and the 'technical' begins, and it could be argued that the 306 distinction itself is a social construction [BijkerLaw] or that a 307 real-life distinction between the two is hard to make [Bloor]. 309 4.5. Protocols are inherently political 311 This position argues the opposite of 'technological neutrality'. 312 This position is illustrated by Postman when he writes: "the uses 313 made of technology are largely determined by the structure of the 314 technology itself" [Postman]. He states that the medium itself 315 "contains an ideological bias". He continues to argue that 316 technology is non-neutral: 318 (1) because of the symbolic forms in which information is encoded; 320 (2) because of the accessibility and speed of their information, 321 different media have different political biases; 323 (3) because of their physical form, different media have different 324 sensory biases; 326 (4) because of the conditions in which we attend to them, different 327 media have different social biases; 329 (5) because of their technical and economic structure, different 330 media have different content biases. 332 Recent scholars of Internet infrastructure and governance have also 333 pointed out that Internet processes and standards have become part 334 and parcel of political processes and public policies. Several 335 concrete examples are found within this approach, for instance, the 336 IANA transition or global innovation policy [DeNardis]. The Raven 337 process in which the IETF refused to standardize wiretapping - which 338 resulted in [RFC2804] - was an instance where an international 339 governance body took a position that was perceived by many as 340 political, although driven by a technical argument. The process that 341 led to [RFC7258] is similar: the Snowden disclosures, which occurred 342 in the political space, engendered the IETF to act. While [RFC2804] 343 was a statement about how a protocol for wiretapping would _not_ be 344 developed, [RFC7258] was a statement that contributed to the 345 development of protocols such as [RFC7858], [RFC8226], and [RFC8404]. 346 The impact of political tensions on protocol development is 347 summarized in [Abbate] who says: "protocols are politics by other 348 means," emphasizing the interests that are at play in the process of 349 designing standards. 351 This position further holds that protocols can never be understood 352 without their contextual embeddedness: protocols do not exist solely 353 by themselves but always are to be understood in a more complex 354 context - the stack, hardware, or nation-state interests and their 355 impact on civil rights. Finally, this view is that protocols are 356 political because they influence the socio-technical workings of 357 reality and society. The latter observation leads Winner to conclude 358 that the reality of technological progress has too often been a 359 scenario where innovation has dictated change for society. Those who 360 had the power to introduce a new technology also had the power to 361 largely frame the uses of the technology "with new practices, 362 relationships, and identities supplanting the old, -- and those who 363 had the wherewithal to implement new technologies often molded 364 society to match the needs of emerging technologies and 365 organizations." [Winner]. 367 5. Discussion 369 Economics, competition, collaboration, openness, and political impact 370 have been an inherent part of the work of the IETF since its early 371 beginnings [Russell] [BramanII] [Abbate]. The IETF cannot ordain 372 which standards are to be used on the networks, and it specifically 373 does not determine the laws of regions or countries where networks 374 are being used, but it does set open standards for interoperability 375 on the Internet, and has done so for many of the Internet's formative 376 years. Because a standard is the blue-print for how to accomplish a 377 particular task, the adopted standards have a normative effect. The 378 standardization work at the IETF has direct implications on what is 379 perceived as technologically possible and useful where networking 380 technologies are being deployed, and thus its standards reflect what 381 is considered by the technical community as feasible and good 382 practice. 384 Whereas there might not be agreement among the Internet protocol 385 community on the specific political nature of the technological 386 development process and its outputs, there is a general consensus 387 among scholars in the fields of Science and Technology Studies and 388 Philosopht of Technology, that technology in general, and standards 389 in specific can be: 391 - a mean for political activity (for instance by using a tool (or 392 protocol) to suppress freedom of expression or enhance citizenship 393 participation), 395 - an object of political activity or deliberation (this can be 396 foregrounded by asking who is making the decision about protocols? 397 Is it democratic and legitimate? Who is excluded in these spaces 398 of decision about protocols/standards? Who should be included, 399 why, and how?), ans as 401 - the setting of political activity (this is analyzing by asking 402 what are the constraints and possibilities of our particular 403 technological culture? How is the history of this technological 404 culture affecting our choices today? [Barney] 406 This opinion is not widely shared with the IRTF and IETF. There it 407 is generally agreed that standards and protocols can be products of a 408 political process, and they can be used for political means, but that 409 this is not always the case. 411 6. Conclusion 413 While understanding that 'standards emerge from contested contexts, 414 they immediately function as a means of control within the political 415 and economic order' [Russell], protocols and standards as abstract 416 isolated artefacts might not be political, but their design, 417 development, deployment, and implementation often is. Therefore we 418 might need to give a qualified answer to the research question, in 419 the sense that protocols can only be understood in part outside of 420 their actual shaping, use, and applied function, which is political. 421 There is no consensus with the Human Rights Protocol Consideration 422 Research Group whether this is always the case, or only in specific 423 cases. 425 Further research could explore how the political nature of the 426 design, development, standardization, and deployment of protocols can 427 be taken into account in the standards development process in order 428 to (1) to minimize negative unintended social consequences, (2) 429 ensure clear understanding of the intended consequences, (3) maintain 430 importance of the IETF as open standards body that facilitates global 431 interoperability. 433 7. Security Considerations 435 As this draft concerns a research document, there are no security 436 considerations as described in [RFC3552], which does not mean that 437 not addressing the issues brought up in this draft will not impact 438 the security of end-users or operators. 440 8. IANA Considerations 442 This document has no actions for IANA. 444 9. Acknowledgments 446 Thanks to Michael Rogers, Joe Hall, Andrew Sullivan, Brian Carpenter, 447 Mark Perkins, S Moonesamy, Stephen Farrell, Amelia Andersdotter, 448 Stephane Couture, and all contributors and reviewers on the hrpc 449 mailinglist. Special thanks to Gisela Perez de Acha for some 450 thorough editing rounds. 452 10. Research Group Information 454 The discussion list for the IRTF Human Rights Protocol Considerations 455 Research Group is located at the e-mail address hrpc@ietf.org [1]. 456 Information on the group and information on how to subscribe to the 457 list is at: https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc [2] 459 Archives of the list can be found at: https://www.irtf.org/mail- 460 archive/web/hrpc/current/index.html [3] 462 11. References 464 11.1. Informative References 466 [Abbate] Abbate, J., "Inventing the Internet", MIT Press , 2000, 467 . 469 [Barney] Barney, D., "One nation under google", Hart House Lecture 470 2007 , 2007, . 473 [BijkerLaw] 474 Bijker, W. and J. Law, "Shaping Technology/ Building 475 Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change", Cambridge, MA: 476 MIT Press , 1992. 478 [Bloor] Bloor, D., "Knowledge and Social Imagery", London: 479 Routeledge & Kegan Paul , 1976. 481 [BramanI] Braman, S., "Internationalization of the Internet by 482 design: The first decade", Global Media and Communication, 483 Vol 8, Issue 1, pp. 27 - 45 , 2012, 484 . 487 [BramanII] 488 Braman, S., "The Framing Years: Policy Fundamentals in the 489 Internet Design Process, 1969-1979", The Information 490 Society Vol. 27, Issue 5, 2011 , 2010, 491 . 494 [BramanIII] 495 Braman, S., "Privacy by design: Networked computing, 496 1969-1979", New Media & Society, 14(5), 798-814, 2011. , 497 2011, . 500 [Carey] Carey, J., "Communication As Culture", p. 139 , 1992. 502 [DeNardis] 503 Denardis, L., "The Internet Design Tension between 504 Surveillance and Security", IEEE Annals of the History of 505 Computing (volume 37-2) , 2015, . 507 [Feenberg] 508 Feenberg, A., "Critical Theory of Technology", p.5-6 , 509 1991. 511 [HagueHarrop] 512 Hague, R. and M. Harrop, "Comparative Government and 513 Politics: An Introduction", Macmillan International Higher 514 Education. pp. 1-. ISBN 978-1-137-31786-5. , 2013. 516 [Heidegger] 517 Heidegger, M., "The Question Concerning Technology and 518 Other Essays", Garland: New York, 1977 , 1977, 519 . 522 [Nadvi] Nadvi, K. and F. Waeltring, "Making sense of global 523 standards", In: H. Schmitz (Ed.), Local enterprises in the 524 global economy (pp. 53-94). Cheltenham, UK: Edward 525 Elgar. , 2004. 527 [Postman] Postman, N., "Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to 528 Technology", Vintage: New York. pp. 3-20. , 1992. 530 [RFC0101] Watson, R., "Notes on the Network Working Group meeting, 531 Urbana, Illinois, February 17, 1971", RFC 101, 532 DOI 10.17487/RFC0101, February 1971, 533 . 535 [RFC0144] Shoshani, A., "Data sharing on computer networks", 536 RFC 144, DOI 10.17487/RFC0144, April 1971, 537 . 539 [RFC0164] Heafner, J., "Minutes of Network Working Group meeting, 540 5/16 through 5/19/71", RFC 164, DOI 10.17487/RFC0164, May 541 1971, . 543 [RFC0196] Watson, R., "Mail Box Protocol", RFC 196, 544 DOI 10.17487/RFC0196, July 1971, 545 . 547 [RFC0286] Forman, E., "Network Library Information System", RFC 286, 548 DOI 10.17487/RFC0286, December 1971, 549 . 551 [RFC0313] O'Sullivan, T., "Computer based instruction", RFC 313, 552 DOI 10.17487/RFC0313, March 1972, 553 . 555 [RFC0316] McKay, D. and A. Mullery, "ARPA Network Data Management 556 Working Group", RFC 316, DOI 10.17487/RFC0316, February 557 1972, . 559 [RFC0542] Neigus, N., "File Transfer Protocol", RFC 542, 560 DOI 10.17487/RFC0542, August 1973, 561 . 563 [RFC0549] Michener, J., "Minutes of Network Graphics Group meeting, 564 15-17 July 1973", RFC 549, DOI 10.17487/RFC0549, July 565 1973, . 567 [RFC0613] McKenzie, A., "Network connectivity: A response to RFC 568 603", RFC 613, DOI 10.17487/RFC0613, January 1974, 569 . 571 [RFC1087] Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and Internet 572 Activities Board, "Ethics and the Internet", RFC 1087, 573 DOI 10.17487/RFC1087, January 1989, 574 . 576 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 577 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, 578 . 580 [RFC2804] IAB and IESG, "IETF Policy on Wiretapping", RFC 2804, 581 DOI 10.17487/RFC2804, May 2000, 582 . 584 [RFC3271] Cerf, V., "The Internet is for Everyone", RFC 3271, 585 DOI 10.17487/RFC3271, April 2002, 586 . 588 [RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC 589 Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, 590 DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003, 591 . 593 [RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF", 594 BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004, 595 . 597 [RFC5218] Thaler, D. and B. Aboba, "What Makes for a Successful 598 Protocol?", RFC 5218, DOI 10.17487/RFC5218, July 2008, 599 . 601 [RFC7258] Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an 602 Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258, May 603 2014, . 605 [RFC7858] Hu, Z., Zhu, L., Heidemann, J., Mankin, A., Wessels, D., 606 and P. Hoffman, "Specification for DNS over Transport 607 Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7858, DOI 10.17487/RFC7858, May 608 2016, . 610 [RFC8226] Peterson, J. and S. Turner, "Secure Telephone Identity 611 Credentials: Certificates", RFC 8226, 612 DOI 10.17487/RFC8226, February 2018, 613 . 615 [RFC8280] ten Oever, N. and C. Cath, "Research into Human Rights 616 Protocol Considerations", RFC 8280, DOI 10.17487/RFC8280, 617 October 2017, . 619 [RFC8404] Moriarty, K., Ed. and A. Morton, Ed., "Effects of 620 Pervasive Encryption on Operators", RFC 8404, 621 DOI 10.17487/RFC8404, July 2018, 622 . 624 [Russell] Russell, A., "Open standards and the digital age: History, 625 ideology, and networks", Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 626 University Press , 2014. 628 [Sisson] Sisson, D., "Standards and Protocols", 2000, 629 . 631 [Winner] Winner, L., "Upon opening the black box and finding it 632 empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of 633 technology", Science, Technology, and Human Values 18 (3) 634 p. 362-378 , 1993. 636 11.2. URIs 638 [1] mailto:hrpc@ietf.org 640 [2] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc 642 [3] https://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/hrpc/current/index.html 644 Author's Address 646 Niels ten Oever 647 University of Amsterdam 649 EMail: mail@nielstenoever.net