rfc9620.original   rfc9620.txt 
Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group G. Grover Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) G. Grover
Internet-Draft Request for Comments: 9620
Updates: 8280 (if approved) N. ten Oever Updates: 8280 N. ten Oever
Intended status: Informational University of Amsterdam Category: Informational University of Amsterdam
Expires: 15 August 2024 12 February 2024 ISSN: 2070-1721 September 2024
Guidelines for Human Rights Protocol and Architecture Considerations Guidelines for Human Rights Protocol and Architecture Considerations
draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-21
Abstract Abstract
This document sets guidelines for human rights considerations for This document sets guidelines for human rights considerations for
developers working on network protocols and architectures, similar to developers working on network protocols and architectures, similar to
the work done on the guidelines for privacy considerations [RFC6973]. the work done on the guidelines for privacy considerations (RFC
This is an updated version of the guidelines for human rights 6973). This is an updated version of the guidelines for human rights
considerations in [RFC8280]. considerations in RFC 8280.
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This informational document has consensus for publication from the This document is a product of the Human Right Protocol Considerations
Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Human Right Protocol (HRPC) Research Group in the IRTF.
Considerations Research (HRPC) Group. It has been reviewed, tried,
and tested by both by the research group as well as by researchers
and practitioners from outside the research group. The research
group acknowledges that the understanding of the impact of Internet
protocols and architecture on society is a developing practice and is
a body of research that is still in development.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. published for informational purposes.
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference and development activities. These results might not be suitable for
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." deployment. This RFC represents the consensus of the Human Rights
Protocol Considerations Research Group of the Internet Research Task
Force (IRTF). Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are not
candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC
7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on 15 August 2024. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9620.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as to this document.
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction
2. Human rights threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Human Rights Threats
3. Conducting human rights reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Conducting Human Rights Reviews
3.1. Analyzing drafts based on guidelines for human rights 3.1. Analyzing Internet-Drafts Based on Guidelines for Human
considerations model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Rights Considerations Model
3.2. Analyzing drafts based on their perceived or speculated 3.2. Analyzing Internet-Drafts Based on Their Perceived or
impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Speculated Impact
3.3. Expert interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Expert Interviews
3.4. Interviews with impacted persons and communities . . . . 7 3.4. Interviews with Impacted Persons and Communities
3.5. Tracing impacts of implementations . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.5. Tracing Impacts of Implementations
4. Guidelines for human rights considerations . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Guidelines for Human Rights Considerations
4.1. Intermediaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. Intermediaries
4.2. Connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. Connectivity
4.3. Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3. Reliability
4.4. Content signals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.4. Content Signals
4.5. Internationalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.5. Internationalization
4.6. Localization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.6. Localization
4.7. Open Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.7. Open Standards
4.8. Heterogeneity Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.8. Heterogeneity Support
4.9. Adaptability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.9. Adaptability
4.10. Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.10. Integrity
4.11. Authenticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.11. Authenticity
4.12. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.12. Confidentiality
4.13. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.13. Security
4.14. Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.14. Privacy
4.15. Anonymity and Pseudonymity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.15. Anonymity and Pseudonymity
4.15.1. Pseudonymity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.15.1. Pseudonymity
4.15.2. Unlinkability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.15.2. Unlinkability
4.16. Censorship resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.16. Censorship Resistance
4.17. Outcome Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4.17. Outcome Transparency
4.18. Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.18. Accessibility
4.19. Decentralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.19. Decentralization
4.20. Remedy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.20. Remedy
4.21. Misc. considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.21. Miscellaneous Considerations
5. Document Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5. Document Status
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6. Security Considerations
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 7. IANA Considerations
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 8. Research Group Information
9. Research Group Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9. Informative References
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document outlines a set of human rights protocol considerations This document outlines a set of human rights protocol considerations
for protocol developers. It provides questions engineers should ask for protocol developers. It provides questions that engineers should
themselves when developing or improving protocols if they want to ask themselves when developing or improving protocols if they want to
understand how their decisions can potentially influence the exercise understand how their decisions can potentially influence the exercise
of human rights on the Internet. It should be noted that the impact of human rights on the Internet. It should be noted that the impact
of a protocol cannot solely be deduced from its design, but its usage of a protocol cannot solely be deduced from its design, but its usage
and implementation should also be studied to form a full protocol and implementation should also be studied to form a full human rights
human rights impact assessment. impact assessment.
The questions are based on the research performed by the Human Rights The questions are based on the research performed by the Human Rights
Protocol Considerations (HRPC) research group which has been Protocol Considerations (HRPC) Research Group, which has been
documented before these considerations. The research establishes documented before these considerations. The research establishes
that human rights relate to standards and protocols, and offers a that human rights relate to standards and protocols and offers a
common vocabulary of technical concepts that influence human rights common vocabulary of technical concepts that influence human rights
and how these technical concepts can be combined to ensure that the and how these technical concepts can be combined to ensure that the
Internet remains an enabling environment for human rights. With Internet remains an enabling environment for human rights. With
this, the contours of a model for developing human rights protocol this, the contours of a model for developing human rights protocol
considerations has taken shape. considerations has taken shape.
This document is an iteration of the guidelines that can be found in This document is an iteration of the guidelines that can be found in
[RFC8280]. The methods for conducting human rights reviews [RFC8280]. The methods for conducting human rights reviews
(Section 3.2), and guidelines for human rights considerations (Section 3.2) and the guidelines for human rights considerations
(Section 3.3) in this document are being tested for relevance, (Section 3.3) in this document are being tested for relevance,
accuracy, and validity. [HR-RT] The understanding of what human accuracy, and validity [HR-RT]. The understanding of what human
rights are is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights rights are is based on the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
[UDHR] and subsequent treaties that jointly form the body of [UDHR] and subsequent treaties that jointly form the body of
international human rights law [UNHR]. international human rights law [UNHR].
This document does not provide a detailed taxonomy of the nature of This document does not provide a detailed taxonomy of the nature of
(potential) human rights violations, whether direct or indirect, (potential) human rights violations, whether direct or indirect /
long-term or short-term, certain protocol choices might present. In long-term or short-term, that certain protocol choices might present.
part because this is highly context-dependent, and in part, because In part, it is because this is highly context-dependent and also
this document aims to provide a practical set of guidelines. because this document aims to provide a practical set of guidelines.
However, further research in this field would definitely benefit However, further research in this field would definitely benefit
developers and implementers. developers and implementers.
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This informational document has consensus for publication from the This informational document has consensus for publication from the
Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Human Right Protocol Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Human Right Protocol
Considerations Research Group. It has been reviewed, tried, and Considerations (HRPC) Research Group. It has been reviewed, tried,
tested by both by the research group as well as by researchers and and tested by both the research group as well as researchers and
practitioners from outside the research group. The HRPC research practitioners from outside the research group. The research group
group acknowledges that the understanding of the impact of Internet acknowledges that the understanding of the impact of Internet
protocols and architecture on society is a developing practice and is protocols and architecture on society is a developing practice and is
a body of research that is still in development. a body of research that is still ongoing. This document is not an
IETF product and is not a standard.
2. Human rights threats 2. Human Rights Threats
Threats to the exercise of human rights on the Internet come in many Threats to the exercise of human rights on the Internet come in many
forms. Protocols and standards may harm or enable the right to forms. Protocols and standards may harm or enable the right to
freedom of expression, right to freedom of information, right to non- freedom of expression; right to freedom of information; right to non-
discrimination, right to equal protection, right to participate in discrimination; right to equal protection; right to participate in
cultural life, arts and science, right to freedom of assembly and cultural life, arts, and science; right to freedom of assembly and
association, right to privacy, and the right to security. An end- association; right to privacy; and right to security. An end user
user who is denied access to certain services or content may be who is denied access to certain services or content may be unable to
unable to disclose vital information about the malpractices of a disclose vital information about the malpractices of a government or
government or other authority. A person whose communications are other authority. A person whose communications are monitored may be
monitored may be prevented or dissuaded from exercising their right prevented or dissuaded from exercising their right to freedom of
to freedom of association or participate in political processes association or participate in political processes [Penney]. In a
[Penney]. In a worst-case scenario, protocols that leak information worst-case scenario, protocols that leak information can lead to
can lead to physical danger. A realistic example to consider is when physical danger. A realistic example to consider is when individuals
individuals perceived as threats to the state are subjected to perceived as threats to the state are subjected to torture, extra-
torture, extra-judicial killing or detention on the basis of judicial killing, or detention on the basis of information gathered
information gathered by state agencies through the monitoring of by state agencies through the monitoring of network traffic.
network traffic.
This document presents several examples of how threats to human This document presents several examples of how threats to human
rights materialize on the Internet. This threat modeling is inspired rights materialize on the Internet. This threat modeling is inspired
by [RFC6973] Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols, which is by "Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols" [RFC6973], which
based on security threat analysis. This method is a work in progress is based on security threat analysis. This method is a work in
and by no means a perfect solution for assessing human rights risks progress and by no means a perfect solution for assessing human
in Internet protocols and systems. Certain specific human rights rights risks in Internet protocols and systems. Certain specific
threats are indirectly considered in Internet protocols as part of human rights threats are indirectly considered in Internet protocols
the security considerations [BCP72], but privacy considerations as part of the security considerations [RFC3552]; however, privacy
[RFC6973] or reviews, let alone human rights impact assessments of considerations [RFC6973] or reviews, let alone human rights impact
protocols, are neither standardized nor implemented. assessments of protocols, are neither standardized nor implemented.
Many threats, enablers, and risks are linked to different rights. Many threats, enablers, and risks are linked to different rights.
This is not surprising if one takes into account that human rights This is not surprising if one takes into account that human rights
are interrelated, interdependent, and indivisible. Here, however, are interrelated, interdependent, and indivisible. However, here
we’re not discussing all human rights because not all human rights we're not discussing all human rights because not all human rights
are relevant to information and communication technologies (ICTs) in are relevant to Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in
general and protocols and standards in particular [Bless]: “The main general and to protocols and standards in particular [Orwat]:
source of the values of human rights is the International Bill of
Human Rights that is composed of the Universal Declaration of Human | The main source of the values of human rights is the
Rights [UDHR] along with the International Covenant on Civil and | _International Bill of Human Rights_ that is composed of the
Political Rights [ICCPR] and the International Covenant on Economic, | _Universal Declaration of Human Rights_ (UDHR) [UDHR] along with
Social and Cultural Rights [ICESCR]. In the light of several cases | the _International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights_ (ICCPR)
of Internet censorship, the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 20/8 | [ICCPR] and the _International Covenant on Economic, Social and
was adopted in 2012, affirming that “the same rights that people have | Cultural Rights_ (ICESCR) [ICESCR]. In the light of several cases
offline must also be protected online.” [UNHRC2016] In 2015, the | of Internet censorship, the UN Human Rights Council Resolution
Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet [IRP] was | 20/8 was adopted in 2012, affirming that "...the same rights that
developed and released. According to these documents, some examples | people have offline must also be protected online..." [UNHRC2016].
of human rights relevant for ICT systems are human dignity (Art. 1 | In 2015, the _Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the
UDHR), non-discrimination (Art. 2), rights to life, liberty and | Internet_ [IRP] was developed and released [Jorgensen]. According
security (Art. 3), freedom of opinion and expression (Art. 19), | to these documents, some examples of human rights relevant for ICT
freedom of assembly and association (Art. 20), rights to equal | systems are _human dignity_ (Art. 1 UDHR), _non-discrimination_
protection, legal remedy, fair trial, due process, presumed innocent | (Art. 2), _rights to life, liberty and security_ (Art. 3),
(Art. 7–11), appropriate social and international order (Art. 28), | _freedom of opinion and expression_ (Art. 19), _freedom of
participation in public affairs (Art. 21), participation in cultural | assembly and association_ (Art. 20), _rights to equal protection,
life, protection of the moral and material interests resulting from | legal remedy, fair trial, due process, presumed innocent_ (Art.
any scientific, literary or artistic production of which [they are] | 7-11), _appropriate social and international order_ (Art. 28),
the author (Art. 27), and privacy (Art. 12).” A partial catalog of | _participation in public affairs_ (Art. 21), _participation in
human rights related to Information and Communications Technologies, | cultural life, protection of intellectual property_ (Art. 27), and
including economic rights, can be found in [Hill2014]. | _privacy_ (Art. 12).
A partial catalog of human rights related to ICTs, including economic
rights, can be found in [Hill].
This is by no means an attempt to exclude specific rights or This is by no means an attempt to exclude specific rights or
prioritize some rights over others. prioritize some rights over others.
3. Conducting human rights reviews 3. Conducting Human Rights Reviews
Ideally, protocol developers and collaborators should incorporate Ideally, protocol developers and collaborators should incorporate
human rights considerations into the design process itself (see human rights considerations into the design process itself (see
Guidelines for human rights considerations). This section provides Section 3.1 ("Analyzing Internet-Drafts Based on Guidelines for Human
guidance on how to conduct a human rights review, i.e., gauge the Rights Considerations Model")). This section provides guidance on
impact or potential impact of a protocol or standard on human rights. how to conduct a human rights review, i.e., gauge the impact or
potential impact of a protocol or standard on human rights.
Human rights reviews can be done by any participant, and can take Human rights reviews can be done by any participant and can take
place at different stages of the development process of an Internet- place at different stages of the development process of an Internet-
Draft. Generally speaking, it is easier to influence the development Draft. Generally speaking, it is easier to influence the development
of a technology at earlier stages than at later stages. This does of a technology at earlier stages than at later stages. This does
not mean that reviews at last-call are not relevant, but they are not mean that reviews at Last Call are not relevant, but they are
less likely to result in significant changes in the reviewed less likely to result in significant changes in the reviewed
document. document.
Human rights review can be done by document authors, document Human rights reviews can be done by document authors, document
shepherds, members of review teams, advocates, or impacted shepherds, members of review teams, advocates, or impacted
communities to influence the standard development process. IETF communities to influence the standards development process. IETF
documents can benefit from people with different knowledges, documents can benefit from people with different knowledge,
perspectives, and backgrounds, especially since their implementation perspectives, and backgrounds, especially since their implementations
can impact many different communities as well. can impact many different communities as well.
Methods for analyzing technology for specific human rights impacts Methods for analyzing technology for specific human rights impacts
are still quite nascent. Currently, five methods have been explored are still quite nascent. Currently, five methods have been explored
by the human rights review team, often in conjunction with each by the human rights review team, often in conjunction with each
other: other.
3.1. Analyzing drafts based on guidelines for human rights 3.1. Analyzing Internet-Drafts Based on Guidelines for Human Rights
considerations model Considerations Model
This analysis of Internet-Drafts uses the model as described in This analysis of Internet-Drafts uses the model as described in
section 4. The outlined categories and questions can be used to Section 4. The outlined categories and questions can be used to
review an Internet-Draft. The advantage of this is that it provides review an Internet-Draft. The advantage of this is that it provides
a known overview, and document authors can go back to this document a known overview, and document authors can go back to this document
as well as [RFC8280] to understand the background and the context. as well as [RFC8280] to understand the background and the context.
3.2. Analyzing drafts based on their perceived or speculated impact 3.2. Analyzing Internet-Drafts Based on Their Perceived or Speculated
Impact
When reviewing an Internet-Draft, specific human rights impacts can When reviewing an Internet-Draft, specific human rights impacts can
become apparent by doing a close reading of the draft and seeking to become apparent by doing a close reading of the draft and seeking to
understand how it might affect networks or society. While less understand how it might affect networks or society. While less
structured than the straight use of the human rights considerations structured than the straight use of the human rights considerations
model, this analysis may lead to new speculative understandings of model, this analysis may lead to new speculative understandings of
links between human rights and protocols. links between human rights and protocols.
3.3. Expert interviews 3.3. Expert Interviews
Interviews with document authors, active members of the Working Interviews with document authors, active members of the working
Group, or experts in the field can help explore the characteristics group, or experts in the field can help explore the characteristics
of the protocol and its effects. There are two main advantages to of the protocol and its effects. There are two main advantages to
this approach: one the one hand, it allows the reviewer to gain a this approach:
deeper understanding of the (intended) workings of the protocol; on
the other hand, it also allows for the reviewer to start a discussion
with experts or even document authors, which can help the review gain
traction when it is published.
3.4. Interviews with impacted persons and communities 1. It allows the reviewer to gain a deeper understanding of the
(intended) workings of the protocol.
2. It allows for the reviewer to start a discussion with experts or
even document authors, which can help the review gain traction
when it is published.
3.4. Interviews with Impacted Persons and Communities
Protocols impact users of the Internet. Interviews can help the Protocols impact users of the Internet. Interviews can help the
reviewer understand how protocols affect the people that use the reviewer understand how protocols affect the people that use the
protocols. Since human rights are best understood from the protocols. Since human rights are best understood from the
perspective of the rights-holder, this approach will improve the perspective of the rights-holder, this approach will improve the
understanding of the real world effects of the technology. At the understanding of the real-world effects of the technology. At the
same time, it can be hard to attribute specific changes to a same time, it can be hard to attribute specific changes to a
particular protocol, this is of course even harder when a protocol particular protocol; this is of course even harder when a protocol
has not been (widely) deployed. has not been widely deployed.
3.5. Tracing impacts of implementations 3.5. Tracing Impacts of Implementations
The reality of deployed protocols can be at odds with the The reality of deployed protocols can be at odds with the
expectations during the protocol design and development phase expectations during the protocol design and development phase
[RFC8980]. When a specification already has associated running code, [RFC8980]. When a specification already has associated running code,
the code can be analyzed either in an experimental setting or on the the code can be analyzed either in an experimental setting or on the
Internet where its impact can be observed. In contrast to reviewing Internet where its impact can be observed. In contrast to reviewing
the draft text, this approach can allow the reviewer to understand the draft text, this approach can allow the reviewer to understand
how the specifications works in practice, and potentially what how the specifications work in practice and potentially what unknown
unknown or unexpected effects the technology has. or unexpected effects the technology has.
4. Guidelines for human rights considerations 4. Guidelines for Human Rights Considerations
This section provides guidance for document authors in the form of a This section provides guidance for document authors in the form of a
questionnaire about protocols and how technical decisions can shape questionnaire about protocols and how technical decisions can shape
the exercise of human rights. The questionnaire may be useful at any the exercise of human rights. The questionnaire may be useful at any
point in the design process, particularly after the document authors point in the design process, particularly after the document authors
have developed a high-level protocol model as described in [RFC4101]. have developed a high-level protocol model as described in [RFC4101].
These guidelines do not seek to replace any existing referenced These guidelines do not seek to replace any existing referenced
specifications, but rather contribute to them and look at the design specifications but, rather, contribute to them and look at the design
process from a human rights perspective. process from a human rights perspective.
Protocols and Internet Standards might benefit from a documented Protocols and Internet Standards might benefit from a documented
discussion of potential human rights risks arising from potential discussion of potential human rights risks arising from potential
misapplications of the protocol or technology described in the misapplications of the protocol or technology described in the
Request For Comments (RFC). This might be coupled with an Request for Comments (RFC). This might be coupled with an
Applicability Statement for that RFC. Applicability Statement for that RFC.
Note that the guidance provided in this section does not recommend Note that the guidance provided in this section does not recommend
specific practices. The range of protocols developed in the IETF is specific practices. The range of protocols developed in the IETF is
too broad to make recommendations about particular uses of data or too broad to make recommendations about particular uses of data or
how human rights might be balanced against other design goals. how human rights might be balanced against other design goals.
However, by carefully considering the answers to the following However, by carefully considering the answers to the following
questions, document authors should be able to produce a comprehensive questions, document authors should be able to produce a comprehensive
analysis that can serve as the basis for discussion on whether the analysis that can serve as the basis for discussion on whether the
protocol adequately takes specific human rights threats into account. protocol adequately takes specific human rights threats into account.
This guidance is meant to help the thought process of a human rights This guidance is meant to help the thought process of a human rights
analysis; it does not provide specific directions for how to write a analysis; it does not provide specific directions for how to write a
human rights considerations section (following the example set in human rights considerations section (following the example set in
[RFC6973]). [RFC6973]).
In considering these questions, authors will need to be aware of the In considering these questions, authors will need to be aware of the
potential of technical advances or the passage of time to undermine potential of technical advances or the passage of time to undermine
protections. In general, considerations of rights are likely to be protections. In general, considerations of rights are likely to be
more effective if they are considered given a purpose and specific more effective if they have a purpose and specific use cases rather
use cases, rather than as abstract absolute goals. than abstract, absolute goals.
Also note that while the section uses the word, ‘protocol’, the Also note that while the section uses the word "protocol", the
principles identified in these questions may be applicable to other principles identified in these questions may be applicable to other
types of solutions (extensions to existing protocols, architecture types of solutions (extensions to existing protocols, architecture
for solutions to specific problems, etc.). for solutions to specific problems, etc.).
4.1. Intermediaries 4.1. Intermediaries
Question(s): Does your protocol depend on or allow for protocol- Question(s): Does your protocol depend on or allow for protocol-
specific functions at intermediary nodes? specific functions at intermediary nodes?
Explanation: The end-to-end principle [Saltzer] holds that certain Explanation: The end-to-end principle [Saltzer] holds that certain
functions can and should be performed at ‘ends’ of the network. functions can and should be performed at "ends" of the network.
[RFC1958] states “that in very general terms, the community believes [RFC1958] states that "in very general terms, the community believes
that the goal is connectivity […] and the intelligence is end to end that the goal is connectivity ... and the intelligence is end to end
rather than hidden in the network.” When a protocol exchange includes rather than hidden in the network". There are new opportunities for
both endpoints and an intermediary, there are new opportunities for failure when a protocol exchange includes both endpoints and an
failure, especially when the intermediary is not under control of intermediary, especially when the intermediary is not under control
either endpoint, or even largely invisible to it, as, for instance, of either endpoint, or is even largely invisible to it, for instance,
in intercepting HTTPS proxies [https-interception]. This pattern as with intercepting HTTPS proxies [HTTPS-interception]. This
also contributes to ossification, because the intermediaries may pattern also contributes to ossification because the intermediaries
impose protocol restrictions – sometimes in violation of the may impose protocol restrictions -- sometimes in violation of the
specification – that prevent the endpoints from using more modern specification -- that prevent the endpoints from using more modern
protocols, as described in Section 9.3 of [RFC8446]. protocols, as described in Section 9.3 of [RFC8446].
Note that intermediaries are distinct from services: in the former Note that intermediaries are distinct from services. In the former
case the third party element is part of the protocol exchange, case, the third-party element is part of the protocol exchange;
whereas in the latter the endpoints communicate explicitly with the whereas in the latter, the endpoints communicate explicitly with the
service. The client/server pattern provides clearer separation of service. The client/server pattern provides clearer separation of
responsibilities between elements than having an intermediary. responsibilities between elements than having an intermediary.
However, even in client/server systems, it is often good practice to However, even in client/server systems, it is often good practice to
provide for end-to-end encryption between endpoints for protocol provide for end-to-end encryption between endpoints for protocol
elements which are outside of the scope of the service, as in the elements that are outside of the scope of the service, as in the
design of MLS [I-D.ietf-mls-protocol]. design of Messaging Layer Security (MLS) [RFC9420].
Example: Encryption between the endpoints can be used to protect the Example: Encryption between the endpoints can be used to protect the
protocol from interference by intermediaries. The encryption of protocol from interference by intermediaries. The encryption of
transport layer information in QUIC [RFC9000] and of the TLS Server transport layer information in QUIC [RFC9000] and of the TLS Server
Name Indication field [I-D.ietf-tls-esni] are examples of this Name Indication (SNI) field [TLS-ESNI] are examples of this practice.
practice. One consequence of this is to limit the extent to which One consequence of this is to limit the extent to which network
network operators can inspect traffic, requiring them to have control operators can inspect traffic, requiring them to have control of the
of the endpoints in order to monitor their behavior. endpoints in order to monitor their behavior.
Impacts: Impacts:
* Right to freedom of expression * Right to freedom of expression
* Right to freedom of assembly and association * Right to freedom of assembly and association
4.2. Connectivity 4.2. Connectivity
Questions(s): Is your protocol optimized for low bandwidth and high Questions(s): Is your protocol optimized for low-bandwidth and high-
latency connections? Could your protocol also be developed in a latency connections? Could your protocol also be developed in a
stateless manner? stateless manner?
Also considering the fact that network quality and conditions vary Considering the fact that network quality and conditions vary across
across geography and time, it is also important to design protocols geography and time, it is also important to design protocols such
such that they are reliable even on low bandwidth and high latency that they are reliable even on low-bandwidth and high-latency
connections. connections.
Impacts: Impacts:
* Right to freedom of expression * Right to freedom of expression
* Right to freedom of assembly and association * Right to freedom of assembly and association
4.3. Reliability 4.3. Reliability
Question(s): Is your protocol fault tolerant? Does it downgrade Question(s): Is your protocol fault tolerant? Does it downgrade
gracefully, i.e., with mechanisms for fallback and/or notice? Can gracefully, i.e., with mechanisms for fallback and/or notice? Can
your protocol resist malicious degradation attempts? Do you have a your protocol resist malicious degradation attempts? Do you have a
documented way to announce degradation? Do you have measures in documented way to announce degradation? Do you have measures in
place for recovery or partial healing from failure? Can your place for recovery or partial healing from failure? Can your
protocol maintain dependability and performance in the face of protocol maintain dependability and performance in the face of
unanticipated changes or circumstances? unanticipated changes or circumstances?
Explanation: Reliability and resiliency ensures that a protocol will Explanation: Reliability and resiliency ensures that a protocol will
execute its function consistently and error resistant as described, execute its function consistently and resistant to error, as
and function without unexpected result. Measures for reliability in described, and will function without unexpected results. Measures
protocols assure users that their intended communication was for reliability in protocols assure users that their intended
successfully executed. communication was successfully executed.
A system that is reliable degrades gracefully and will have a A system that is reliable degrades gracefully and will have a
documented way to announce degradation. It will also have mechanisms documented way to announce degradation. It will also have mechanisms
to recover from failure gracefully, and if applicable, will allow for to recover from failure gracefully and, if applicable, will allow for
partial healing. partial healing.
It is important here to draw a distinction between random degradation It is important here to draw a distinction between random degradation
and malicious degradation. Some attacks against previous versions of and malicious degradation. Some attacks against previous versions of
TLS, for example, exploited TLS’ ability to gracefully downgrade to TLS, for example, exploited TLS' ability to gracefully downgrade to
non-secure cipher suites [FREAK][Logjam]– from a functional non-secure cipher suites [FREAK] [Logjam]; from a functional
perspective, this is useful; from a security perspective, this can be perspective, this is useful, but from a security perspective, this
disastrous. can be disastrous.
For reliability, it is necessary that services notify the users if a For reliability, it is necessary that services notify the users if a
delivery fails. In the case of real-time systems, in addition to the delivery fails. In the case of real-time systems, in addition to the
reliable delivery, the protocol needs to safeguard timeliness. reliable delivery, the protocol needs to safeguard timeliness.
Example: In the modern IP stack structure, a reliable transport layer Example: In the modern IP stack structure, a reliable transport layer
requires an indication that transport processing has successfully requires an indication that transport processing has successfully
completed, such as given by TCP’s ACK message [RFC0793]. Similarly, completed, such as given by TCP's ACK message [RFC9293]. Similarly,
an application layer protocol may require an application-specific an application-layer protocol may require an application-specific
acknowledgment that contains, among other things, a status code acknowledgement that contains, among other things, a status code
indicating the disposition of the request (See [RFC3724]). indicating the disposition of the request (see [RFC3724]).
Impacts: Impacts:
* Right to freedom of expression * Right to freedom of expression
* Right to security * Right to security
4.4. Content signals 4.4. Content Signals
Question(s): Does your protocol include explicit or implicit Question(s): Does your protocol include explicit or implicit
plaintext elements, either in the payload or headers, that can be plaintext elements, in either the payload or the headers, that can be
used for differential treatment? Is there a way minimise leaking of used for differential treatment? Is there a way to minimize leaking
such data to network intermediaries? If not, is there a way for such data to network intermediaries? If not, is there a way for
deployments of the protocol to make the differential treatment deployments of the protocol to make the differential treatment
(including prioritisation of certain traffic), if any, auditable for (including prioritization of certain traffic), if any, auditable for
negative impacts on net neutrality? negative impacts on net neutrality?
Example: When network intermediaries are able to determine the type Example: When network intermediaries are able to determine the type
of content that a packet is carrying then they can use that of content that a packet is carrying, then they can use that
information to discriminate in favor of one type of content and information to discriminate in favor of one type of content and
against another. This impacts users ability to send and receive the against another. This impacts users' ability to send and receive the
content of their choice. content of their choice.
As recommended in [RFC8558] protocol designers should avoid the As recommended in [RFC8558], protocol designers should avoid the
construction of implicit signals of their content. In general, construction of implicit signals of their content. In general,
protocol designers should avoid adding explicit signals for protocol designers should avoid adding explicit signals for
intermediaries. In certain cases, it may be necessary to add such intermediaries. In certain cases, it may be necessary to add such
explicit signals, but designers should only do so when they provide explicit signals, but designers should only do so when they provide
clear benefit to end users (see [RFC8890] for more on the priority of clear benefit to end users (see [RFC8890] for more on the priority of
constituencies). In these cases, the implications of those signal constituencies). In these cases, the implications of those signals
for human rights should be documented. for human rights should be documented.
Note that many protocols provide signals that are intended for Note that many protocols provide signals that are intended for
endpoints that can be used as implicit signals by intermediaries for endpoints that can be used as implicit signals by intermediaries for
traffic discrimination, either based on content (e.g., TCP port traffic discrimination, based on either the content (e.g., TCP port
numbers) or sender/receiver (IP addresses). Where possible, these numbers) or the sender/receiver (IP addresses). Where possible,
should be protected from intermediaries by encryption. In many cases these should be protected from intermediaries by encryption. In many
– e.g., IP address – these signals are difficult to remove, but in cases (e.g., IP addresses), these signals are difficult to remove;
other cases, such as TLS Application Layer Protocol Negotiation but in other cases, such as TLS Application Layer Protocol
[RFC7301], there are active efforts to protect this data Negotiation [RFC7301], there are active efforts to protect this data
[I-D.ietf-tls-esni]. [TLS-ESNI].
Impacts:
* Right to freedom of expression * Right to freedom of expression
* Right to non-discrimination * Right to non-discrimination
* Right to equal protection * Right to equal protection
4.5. Internationalization 4.5. Internationalization
Question(s): Does your protocol or specification define text string Question(s): Does your protocol or specification define text string
elements, in the payload or headers, that have to be understood or elements, in the payload or headers, that have to be understood or
entered by humans? Does your specification allow Unicode? If so, do entered by humans? Does your specification allow Unicode? If so, do
you accept texts in one charset (which must be UTF-8), or several you accept texts in one character set (which must be UTF-8) or
(which is dangerous for interoperability)? If character sets or several (which is dangerous for interoperability)? If charsets or
encodings other than UTF-8 are allowed, does your specification encodings other than UTF-8 are allowed, does your specification
mandate a proper tagging of the charset? Did you have a look at mandate a proper tagging of the charset? Did you have a look at
[RFC6365]? [RFC6365]?
Explanation: Internationalization refers to the practice of making Explanation: Internationalization refers to the practice of making
protocols, standards, and implementations usable in different protocols, standards, and implementations usable in different
languages and scripts (see Localization). In the IETF, languages and scripts (see Section 4.6 ("Localization")). In the
internationalization means to add or improve the handling of non- IETF, internationalization means to add or improve the handling of
ASCII text in a protocol. [RFC6365] A different perspective, more non-ASCII text in a protocol [RFC6365]. A different perspective,
appropriate to protocols that are designed for global use from the more appropriate to protocols that are designed for global use from
beginning, is the definition used by the World Wide Web Consortium the beginning, is the definition used by the World Wide Web
(W3C): Consortium (W3C) [W3Ci18nDef]:
"Internationalization is the design and development of a | Internationalization is the design and development of a product,
product, application or document content that enables easy | application or document content that enables easy localization for
localization for target audiences that vary in culture, region, | target audiences that vary in culture, region, or language.
or language." {{W3Ci18nDef}}
Many protocols that handle text only handle one charset (US-ASCII), Many protocols that handle text only handle one charset (US-ASCII) or
or leave the question of what coded character set and encoding are leave the question of what coded charset and encoding are used up to
used up to local guesswork (which leads, of course, to local guesswork (which leads, of course, to interoperability
interoperability problems). If multiple charsets are permitted, they problems). If multiple charsets are permitted, they must be
must be explicitly identified [RFC2277]. Adding non-ASCII text to a explicitly identified [RFC2277]. Adding non-ASCII text to a protocol
protocol allows the protocol to handle more scripts, hopefully allows the protocol to handle more scripts, hopefully representing
representing users across the world. In today’s world, that is users across the world. In today's world, that is normally best
normally best accomplished by allowing Unicode encoded in UTF-8 only. accomplished by allowing only Unicode encoded in UTF-8.
In current IETF practice [RFC2277], internationalization is aimed at In current IETF practice [RFC2277], internationalization is aimed at
user-facing strings, not protocol elements, such as the verbs used by user-facing strings, not protocol elements, such as the verbs used by
some text-based protocols. (Do note that some strings are both some text-based protocols. (Do note that some strings are both
content and protocol elements, such as identifiers.) Although this content and protocol elements, such as identifiers.) Although this
is reasonable practice for non-user visible elements, given the is reasonable practice for non-user visible elements, developers
IETF’s mission to make the Internet a global network of networks, should provide full and equal support for all scripts and charsets in
[RFC3935] developers should provide full and equal support for all the user-facing features of protocols and for any content they carry.
scripts and character sets in the user-facing features of protocols
and for any content they carry.
Example: See localization Example: See Section 4.6 ("Localization").
Impacts: Impacts:
* Right to freedom of expression * Right to freedom of expression
* Right to political participation * Right to political participation
* Right to participate in cultural life, arts and science * Right to participate in cultural life, arts, and science
4.6. Localization 4.6. Localization
Question(s): Does your protocol uphold the standards of Question(s): Does your protocol uphold the standards of
internationalization? Have you made any concrete steps towards internationalization? Have you made any concrete steps towards
localizing your protocol for relevant audiences? localizing your protocol for relevant audiences?
Explanation: Localization refers to the adaptation of a product, Explanation: "Localization refers to the adaptation of a product,
application or document content to meet the language, cultural and application or document content to meet the language, cultural and
other requirements of a specific target market (a locale) other requirements of a specific target market (a 'locale')"
[W3Ci18nDef]. For our purposes, it can be described as the practice [W3Ci18nDef]. For our purposes, it can be described as the practice
of translating an implementation to make it functional in a specific of translating an implementation to make it functional in a specific
language or for users in a specific locale (see language or for users in a specific locale (see Section 4.5
Internationalization). Internationalization is related to ("Internationalization")). Internationalization is related to
localization, but they are not the same. Internationalization is a localization, but they are not the same. Internationalization is a
necessary precondition for localization. necessary precondition for localization.
Example: The Internet is a global medium, but many of its protocols Example: The Internet is a global medium, but many of its protocols
and products are developed with a certain audience in mind, that and products are developed with certain audiences in mind that often
often share particular characteristics like knowing how to read and share particular characteristics like knowing how to read and write
write in American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) in American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) and
and knowing English. This limits the ability of a large part of the knowing English. This limits the ability of a large part of the
world’s online population from using the Internet in a way that is world's online population from using the Internet in a way that is
culturally and linguistically accessible. An example of a standard culturally and linguistically accessible. An example of a standard
that has taken into account the view that individuals like to have that has taken into account the view that individuals like to have
access to data in their native language can be found in [RFC5646]. access to data in their preferred language can be found in [RFC5646].
The document describes a way to label information with an identifier The document describes a way to label information with an identifier
for the language in which it is written. And this allows information for the language in which it is written. And this allows information
to be presented and accessed in more than one language. to be presented and accessed in more than one language.
Impacts: Impacts:
* Right to non-discrimination * Right to non-discrimination
* Right to participate in cultural life, arts and science * Right to participate in cultural life, arts, and science
* Right to freedom of expression * Right to freedom of expression
4.7. Open Standards 4.7. Open Standards
Question(s): Is your protocol fully documented in a way that it could Question(s): Is your protocol fully documented in a way that it could
be easily implemented, improved, built upon and/or further developed? be easily implemented, improved, built upon, and/or further
Do you depend on proprietary code for the implementation, running or developed? Do you depend on proprietary code for the implementation,
further development of your protocol? Does your protocol favor a running, or further development of your protocol? Does your protocol
particular proprietary specification over technically-equivalent favor a particular proprietary specification over technically
competing specification(s), for instance by making any incorporated equivalent competing specification(s), for instance, by making any
vendor specification “required” or “recommended” [RFC2026]? Do you incorporated vendor specification "required" or "recommended"
normatively reference another standard that is not available without [RFC2026]? Do you normatively reference another standard that is
cost (and could you do without it)? Are you aware of any patents behind a paywall (and could you do without it)? Are you aware of any
that would prevent your standard from being fully implemented patents that would prevent your standard from being fully implemented
[RFC8179] [RFC6701]? [RFC8179] [RFC6701]?
Explanation: The Internet was able to be developed into the global Explanation: The Internet was able to be developed into the global
network of networks because of the existence of open, non-proprietary network of networks because of the existence of open, non-proprietary
standards [Zittrain]. They are crucial for enabling standards [Zittrain]. They are crucial for enabling
interoperability. Yet, open standards are not explicitly defined interoperability. Yet, open standards are not explicitly defined
within the IETF. On the subject, [RFC2026] states: “Various national within the IETF. On the subject, [RFC2026] states:
and international standards bodies, such as ANSI, ISO, IEEE, and ITU-
T, develop a variety of protocol and service specifications that are | Various national and international standards bodies, such as ANSI,
similar to Technical Specifications defined at the IETF. National | ISO, IEEE, and ITU-T, develop a variety of protocol and service
and international groups also publish “implementors’ agreements” that | specifications that are similar to Technical Specifications
are analogous to Applicability Statements, capturing a body of | defined here [at the IETF]. National and international groups
implementation-specific detail concerned with the practical | also publish "implementors' agreements" that are analogous to
application of their standards. All of these are considered to be | Applicability Statements, capturing a body of implementation-
“open external standards” for the purposes of the Internet Standards | specific detail concerned with the practical application of their
Process.” Similarly, [RFC3935] does not define open standards but | standards. All of these are considered to be "open external
does emphasize the importance of an “open process”, i.e., “any | standards" for the purposes of the Internet Standards Process.
interested person can participate in the work, know what is being
decided, and make [their] voice heard on the issue.” Similarly, [RFC3935] does not define open standards but does
emphasize the importance of an "open process", i.e.:
| ... any interested person can participate in the work, know what
| is being decided, and make [their] voice heard on the issue.
Open standards (and open source software) allow users to glean Open standards (and open source software) allow users to glean
information about how the tools they are using work, including the information about how the tools they are using work, including the
tools’ security and privacy properties. They additionally allow for tools' security and privacy properties. They additionally allow for
permissionless innovation, which is important to maintain the freedom permissionless innovation, which is important to maintain the freedom
and ability to freely create and deploy new protocols on top of the and ability to freely create and deploy new protocols on top of the
communications constructs that currently exist. It is at the heart communications constructs that currently exist. It is at the heart
of the Internet as we know it, and to maintain its fundamentally open of the Internet as we know it, and to maintain its fundamentally open
nature, we need to be mindful of the need for developing open nature, we need to be mindful of the need for developing open
standards. standards.
All standards that need to be normatively implemented should be All standards that need to be normatively implemented should be
freely available and with reasonable protection for patent freely available and with reasonable protection for patent
infringement claims, so it can also be implemented in open source or infringement claims so that they can also be implemented in open
free software. Patents have often held back open standardization or source or free software. Patents have often held back open
been used against those deploying open standards, particularly in the standardization or been used against those deploying open standards,
domain of cryptography [newegg]. An exemption of this is sometimes particularly in the domain of cryptography [Newegg]. An exemption of
made when a protocol is standardized that normatively relies on this is sometimes made when a standardized protocol normatively
specifications produced by others standards development organizations relies on specifications produced by others Standards Development
(SDOs) that are not freely available. Patents in open standards or Organizations (SDOs) that are not freely available. Patents in open
in normative references to other standards should have a patent standards or in normative references to other standards should have a
disclosure [notewell], royalty-free licensing [patentpolicy], or some patent disclosure [Note-well], royalty-free licensing
other form of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. [Patent-policy], or some other form of fair, reasonable, and non-
discriminatory terms.
Example: [RFC6108] describes a system for providing critical end-user Example: [RFC6108] describes a system for providing critical end-user
notifications to web browsers, which has been deployed by Comcast, an notifications to web browsers, which has been deployed by Comcast, an
Internet Service Provider (ISP). Such a notification system is being Internet Service Provider (ISP). Such a notification system is being
used to provide near-immediate notifications to customers, such as to used to provide near-immediate notifications to customers, such as to
warn them that their traffic exhibits patterns that are indicative of warn them that their traffic exhibits patterns that are indicative of
malware or virus infection. There are other proprietary systems that malware or virus infection. There are other proprietary systems that
can perform such notifications, but those systems utilize Deep Packet can perform such notifications, but those systems utilize Deep Packet
Inspection (DPI) technology. In contrast, that document describes a Inspection (DPI) technology. In contrast, that document describes a
system that does not rely upon DPI, and is instead based on open IETF system that does not rely upon DPI and is instead based on open IETF
standards and open source applications. standards and open source applications.
Impacts: Impacts:
* Right to freedom of expression * Right to freedom of expression
* Right to participate in cultural life, arts and science * Right to participate in cultural life, arts, and science
4.8. Heterogeneity Support 4.8. Heterogeneity Support
Question(s): Does your protocol support heterogeneity by design? Question(s): Does your protocol support heterogeneity by design?
Does your protocol allow for multiple types of hardware? Does your Does your protocol allow for multiple types of hardware? Does your
protocol allow for multiple types of application protocols? Is your protocol allow for multiple types of application protocols? Is your
protocol liberal in what it receives and handles? Will it remain protocol liberal in what it receives and handles? Will it remain
usable and open if the context changes? usable and open if the context changes?
Explanation: The Internet is characterized by heterogeneity on many Explanation: The Internet is characterized by heterogeneity on many
levels: devices and nodes, router scheduling algorithms and queue levels: devices, nodes, router scheduling algorithms, queue
management mechanisms, routing protocols, levels of multiplexing, management mechanisms, routing protocols, levels of multiplexing,
protocol versions and implementations, underlying link layers (e.g., protocol versions and implementations, and underlying link layers
point-to-point, multi-access links, wireless, FDDI, etc.), in the (e.g., point-to-point, multi-access links, wireless, Fiber
traffic mix and in the levels of congestion at different times and Distributed Data Interface (FDDI), etc.) in the traffic mix and in
places. Moreover, as the Internet is composed of autonomous the levels of congestion at different times and places. Moreover, as
organizations and ISPs, each with their own separate policy concerns, the Internet is composed of autonomous organizations and ISPs, each
there is a large heterogeneity of administrative domains and pricing with their own separate policy concerns, there is a large
structures. As a result, the heterogeneity principle proposed in heterogeneity of administrative domains and pricing structures. As a
[RFC1958] needs to be supported by design [FIArch]. result, the heterogeneity principle proposed in [RFC1958] needs to be
supported by design [FIArch].
Heterogeneity support in protocols can thus enable a wide range of Heterogeneity support in protocols can, thus, enable a wide range of
devices and (by extension) users to participate on the network. devices and (by extension) users to participate on the network.
Example: Heterogeneity significantly contributed to the success of Example: Heterogeneity significantly contributed to the success of
the internet architecture [Zittrain]. Niels Bohr famously said: the Internet architecture [Zittrain]. There is a famous quote often
“Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future”, attributed to Niels Bohr: "Prediction is very difficult, especially
this also holds true for future uses of the internet architecture and if it's about the future." This also holds true for future uses of
infrastructure. Therefore, as a rule of thumb it is important to - the Internet architecture and infrastructure. Therefore, as a rule
as far as possible - design your protocol for different devices and of thumb, it is important to -- as far as possible -- design your
uses, especially at lower layers of the stack. However, if you protocol for different devices and uses, especially at lower layers
choose not to do this, it could be relevant to document the reasoning of the stack. However, if you choose not to do this, it could be
for that. relevant to document the reasoning for that.
Impacts: Impacts:
* Right to freedom of expression * Right to freedom of expression
* Right to political participation * Right to political participation
4.9. Adaptability 4.9. Adaptability
Question(s): Question: Is your protocol written in a modular fashion Question(s): Is your protocol written in a modular fashion, and does
and does it facilitate or hamper extensibility? In this sense, does it facilitate or hamper extensibility? In this sense, does your
your protocol impact permissionless innovation? (See Open Standards) protocol impact permissionless innovation? (See Section 4.7 ("Open
Standards").)
Explanation: Adaptability is closely interrelated with permissionless Explanation: Adaptability is closely interrelated with permissionless
innovation: both maintain the freedom and ability to freely create innovation: both maintain the freedom and ability to create and
and deploy new protocols on top of the communications constructs that deploy new protocols on top of the communications constructs that
currently exist. It is at the heart of the Internet as we know it, currently exist. It is at the heart of the Internet as we know it,
and to maintain its fundamentally open nature, we need to be mindful and to maintain its fundamentally open nature, we need to be mindful
of the impact of protocols on maintaining or reducing permissionless of the impact of protocols on maintaining or reducing permissionless
innovation to ensure the Internet can continue to develop. innovation to ensure that the Internet can continue to develop.
Adaptability and permissionless innovation can be used to shape Adaptability and permissionless innovation can be used to shape
information networks as preferenced by groups of users. Furthermore, information networks as groups of users prefer. Furthermore, a
a precondition of adaptability is the ability of the people who can precondition of adaptability is the ability of the people who can
adapt the network to be able to know and understand the network. adapt the network to be able to know and understand the network.
This is why adaptability and permissionless innovation are inherently This is why adaptability and permissionless innovation are inherently
connected to the right to education and the right to science as well connected to the right to education and the right to science as well
as the right to freedom of assembly and association as well as the as the right to freedom of assembly and association and the right to
right to freedom of expression. Since it allows the users of the freedom of expression, since it allows the users of the network to
network to determine how to assemble, collaborate, and express determine how to assemble, collaborate, and express themselves.
themselves.
Example: WebRTC generates audio and/or video data. WebRTC can be Example: WebRTC generates audio and/or video data. WebRTC can be
used in different locations by different parties; WebRTC’s standard used in different locations by different parties; WebRTC's standard
application programming interfaces (APIs) are developed to support Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) are developed to support
applications from different voice service providers. Multiple applications from different voice service providers. Multiple
parties will have similar capabilities, in order to ensure that all parties will have similar capabilities. In order to ensure that all
parties can build upon existing standards these need to be adaptable, parties can build upon existing standards, these need to be adaptable
and allow for permissionless innovation. and allow for permissionless innovation.
Impacts: Impacts:
* Right to education * Right to education
* Right to science * Right to science
* Right to freedom of expression * Right to freedom of expression
* Right to freedom of assembly and association * Right to freedom of assembly and association
4.10. Integrity 4.10. Integrity
Question(s): Does your protocol maintain, assure and/or verify the Question(s): Does your protocol maintain, assure, and/or verify the
accuracy of payload data? Does your protocol maintain and assure the accuracy of payload data? Does your protocol maintain and assure the
consistency of data? Does your protocol in any way allow for the consistency of data? Does your protocol in any way allow for the
data to be (intentionally or unintentionally) altered? data to be (intentionally or unintentionally) altered?
Explanation: Integrity refers to the maintenance and assurance of the Explanation: Integrity refers to the maintenance and assurance of the
accuracy and consistency of data to ensure it has not been accuracy and consistency of data to ensure it has not been
(intentionally or unintentionally) altered. (intentionally or unintentionally) altered.
Example: Integrity verification of data is important to prevent Example: Integrity verification of data is important to prevent
vulnerabilities and attacks from on-path attackers. These attacks vulnerabilities and attacks from on-path attackers. These attacks
happen when a third party (often for malicious reasons) intercepts a happen when a third party (often for malicious reasons) intercepts a
communication between two parties, inserting themselves in the middle communication between two parties, inserting themselves in the middle
changing the content of the data. In practice this looks as follows: and changing the content of the data. In practice, this looks as
follows:
Alice wants to communicate with Bob. Alice sends a message to Bob, Alice wants to communicate with Bob. Alice sends a message to Bob,
which Corinne intercepts and modifies. Bob cannot see that the data which Corinne intercepts and modifies. Bob cannot see that the data
from Alice was altered by Corinne. Corinne intercepts and alters the from Alice was altered by Corinne. Corinne intercepts and alters the
communication as it is sent between Alice and Bob. Corinne is able communication as it is sent between Alice and Bob. Corinne is able
to control the communication content. to control the communication content.
Impacts: Impacts:
* Right to freedom of expression * Right to freedom of expression
* Right to security * Right to security
4.11. Authenticity 4.11. Authenticity
Question(s): Do you have sufficient measures to confirm the truth of Question(s): Do you have sufficient measures to confirm the truth of
an attribute of a single piece of data or entity? Can the attributes an attribute of a single piece of data or entity? Can the attributes
get garbled along the way (see security)? If relevant, have you get garbled along the way (see Section 4.13 ("Security"))? If
implemented IPsec, DNS Security (DNSSEC), HTTPS and other Standard relevant, have you implemented IPsec, DNS Security (DNSSEC), HTTPS,
Security Best Practices? and other standard security best practices?
Explanation: Authenticity ensures that data does indeed come from the Explanation: Authenticity ensures that data does indeed come from the
source it claims to come from. This is important to prevent certain source it claims to come from. This is important to prevent certain
attacks or unauthorized access and use of data. attacks or unauthorized access and use of data.
At the same time, authentication should not be used as a way to At the same time, authentication should not be used as a way to
prevent heterogeneity support, as is often done for vendor lock-in or prevent heterogeneity support, as is often done for vendor lock-in or
digital rights management. digital rights management.
Example: Authentication of data is important to prevent Example: Authentication of data is important to prevent
vulnerabilities, and attacks from on-path attackers. These attacks vulnerabilities and attacks from on-path attackers. These attacks
happen when a third party (often for malicious reasons) intercepts a happen when a third party (often for malicious reasons) intercepts a
communication between two parties, inserting themselves in the middle communication between two parties, inserting themselves in the middle
and posing as both parties. In practice this looks as follows: and posing as both parties. In practice, this looks as follows:
Alice wants to communicate with Bob. Alice sends data to Bob. Alice wants to communicate with Bob. Alice sends data to Bob.
Corinne intercepts the data sent to Bob. Corinne reads (and Corinne intercepts the data sent to Bob. Corinne reads (and
potentially alters) the message to Bob. Bob cannot see that the data potentially alters) the message to Bob. Bob cannot see that the data
did not come from Alice but from Corinne. did not come from Alice but from Corinne.
With proper authentication, the scenario would be as follows: With proper authentication, the scenario would be as follows:
Alice wants to communicate with Bob. Alice sends data to Bob. Alice wants to communicate with Bob. Alice sends data to Bob.
Corinne intercepts the data sent to Bob. Corinne reads and alters Corinne intercepts the data sent to Bob. Corinne reads and alters
skipping to change at page 19, line 4 skipping to change at line 821
What controls or consent mechanisms does the protocol define or What controls or consent mechanisms does the protocol define or
require before personal data or identifiers are shared or exposed via require before personal data or identifiers are shared or exposed via
the protocol? If no such mechanisms or controls are specified, is it the protocol? If no such mechanisms or controls are specified, is it
expected that control and consent will be handled outside of the expected that control and consent will be handled outside of the
protocol? protocol?
Does the protocol provide ways for initiators to share different Does the protocol provide ways for initiators to share different
pieces of information with different recipients? If not, are there pieces of information with different recipients? If not, are there
mechanisms that exist outside of the protocol to provide initiators mechanisms that exist outside of the protocol to provide initiators
with such control? with such control?
Does the protocol provide ways for initiators to limit the sharing or Does the protocol provide ways for initiators to limit the sharing or
express individuals’ preferences to recipients or intermediaries with expressing of individuals' preferences to recipients or
regard to the collection, use, or disclosure of their personal data? intermediaries with regard to the collection, use, or disclosure of
If not, are there mechanisms that exist outside of the protocol to their personal data? If not, are there mechanisms that exist outside
provide users with such control? Is it expected that users will have of the protocol to provide users with such control? Is it expected
relationships that govern the use of the information (contractual or that users will have relationships that govern the use of the
otherwise) with those who operate these intermediaries? Does the information (contractual or otherwise) with those who operate these
protocol prefer encryption over clear text operation? intermediaries? Does the protocol prefer encryption over cleartext
operation?
Explanation: Confidentiality refers to keeping your data secret from Explanation: Confidentiality refers to keeping your data secret from
unintended listeners [BCP72]. The growth of the Internet depends on unintended listeners [RFC3552]. The growth of the Internet depends
users having confidence that the network protects their personal data on users having confidence that the network protects their personal
[RFC1984]. The possibility of pervasive monitoring and surveillance data [RFC1984]. The possibility of pervasive monitoring and
undermines users’ trust, and can be mitigated by ensuring surveillance undermines users' trust and can be mitigated by ensuring
confidentiality, i.e., passive attackers should gain little or no confidentiality, i.e., passive attackers should gain little or no
information from observation or inference of protocol activity. information from observation or inference of protocol activity
[RFC7258][RFC7624]. [RFC7258] [RFC7624].
Example: Protocols that do not encrypt their payload make the entire Example: Protocols that do not encrypt their payload make the entire
content of the communication available to the idealized attacker content of the communication available to the idealized attacker
along their path. Following the advice in [RFC3365], most such along their path. Following the advice in [RFC3365], most such
protocols have a secure variant that encrypts the payload for protocols have a secure variant that encrypts the payload for
confidentiality, and these secure variants are seeing ever-wider confidentiality, and these secure variants are seeing ever-wider
deployment. A noteworthy exception is DNS [RFC1035], as DNSSEC deployment. A noteworthy exception is DNS [RFC1035], as DNSSEC
[RFC4033] does not have confidentiality as a requirement. This [RFC4033] does not have confidentiality as a requirement. This
implies that, in the absence of the use of more recent standards like implies that, in the absence of the use of more recent standards like
DNS over TLS [RFC7858] or DNS over HTTPS [RFC8484], all DNS queries DNS over TLS [RFC7858] or DNS over HTTPS [RFC8484], all DNS queries
skipping to change at page 20, line 7 skipping to change at line 866
[RFC7624]. [RFC7624].
Impacts: Impacts:
* Right to privacy * Right to privacy
* Right to security * Right to security
4.13. Security 4.13. Security
Question(s): Did you have a look at Guidelines for Writing RFC Text Question(s): Did you have a look at "Guidelines for Writing RFC Text
on Security Considerations [BCP72]? Have you found any attacks that on Security Considerations" [RFC3552]? Have you found any attacks
are somewhat related to your protocol/specification, yet considered that are somewhat related to your protocol/specification yet
out of scope of your document? Would these attacks be pertinent to considered out of scope of your document? Would these attacks be
the human rights enabling features of the Internet (as described pertinent to the human-rights-enabling features of the Internet (as
throughout this document)? described throughout this document)?
Explanation: Security is not a single monolithic property of a Explanation: Security is not a single monolithic property of a
protocol or system, but rather a series of related but somewhat protocol or system but rather a series of related yet somewhat
independent properties. Not all of these properties are required for independent properties. Not all of these properties are required for
every application. Since communications are carried out by systems every application. Since communications are carried out by systems
and access to systems is through communications channels, security and access to systems is through communications channels, security
goals obviously interlock, but they can also be independently goals obviously interlock, but they can also be independently
provided. [BCP72]. provided [RFC3552].
Typically, any protocol operating on the Internet can be the target Typically, any protocol operating on the Internet can be the target
of passive attacks (when the attacker can access and read packets on of passive attacks (when the attacker can access and read packets on
the network); active attacks (when an attacker is capable of writing the network) and active attacks (when an attacker is capable of
information to the network packets). [BCP72] writing information to the network packets) [RFC3552].
Example: See [BCP72]. Example: See [RFC3552].
Impacts: Impacts:
* Right to freedom of expression * Right to freedom of expression
* Right to freedom of assembly and association * Right to freedom of assembly and association
* Right to non-discrimination * Right to non-discrimination
* Right to security * Right to security
4.14. Privacy 4.14. Privacy
Question(s): Did you have a look at the Guidelines in the Privacy Question(s): Did you have a look at the guidelines described in
Considerations for Internet Protocols [RFC6973] section 7? Does your Section 7 of "Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols"
protocol maintain the confidentiality of metadata? Could your [RFC6973]? Does your protocol maintain the confidentiality of
protocol counter traffic analysis? Does your protocol adhere to data metadata? Could your protocol counter traffic analysis? Does your
minimization principles? Does your document identify potentially protocol adhere to data minimization principles? Does your document
sensitive data logged by your protocol and/or for how long that needs identify potentially sensitive data logged by your protocol and/or
to be retained for technical reasons? for how long that needs to be retained for technical reasons?
Explanation: Privacy refers to the right of an entity (normally a Explanation: Privacy refers to the right of an entity (normally a
person), acting on its own behalf, to determine the degree to which person), acting on its own behalf, to determine the degree to which
it will interact with its environment, including the degree to which it will interact with its environment, including the degree to which
the entity is willing to share its personal information with others. the entity is willing to share its personal information with others
[RFC4949]. If a protocol provides insufficient privacy protection,
[RFC4949]. If a protocol provides insufficient privacy protection it it may have a negative impact on freedom of expression as users self-
may have a negative impact on freedom of expression as users self- censor for fear of surveillance or find that they are unable to
censor for fear of surveillance, or find themselves unable to express express themselves freely.
themselves freely.
Example: See [RFC6973] Example: See [RFC6973].
Impacts: Impacts:
* Right to freedom of expression * Right to freedom of expression
* Right to privacy * Right to privacy
* Right to non-discrimination * Right to non-discrimination
4.15. Anonymity and Pseudonymity 4.15. Anonymity and Pseudonymity
Question(s): Does your protocol make use of identifiers? Are these Question(s): Does your protocol make use of identifiers? Are these
identifiers persistent? Are they used across multiple contexts? Is identifiers persistent? Are they used across multiple contexts? Is
it possible for the user to reset or rotate them without negatively it possible for the user to reset or rotate them without negatively
impacting the operation fo the protocol? Are they visible to others impacting the operation of the protocol? Are they visible to others
besides the protocol endpoints? Are they tied to real-world besides the protocol endpoints? Are they tied to real-world
identities? Have you considered the Privacy Considerations for identities? Have you considered "Privacy Considerations for Internet
Internet Protocols [RFC6973], especially section 6.1.2? Protocols" [RFC6973], especially Section 6.1.2?
Explanation: Most protocols depend on the use of some kind of Explanation: Most protocols depend on the use of some kind of
identifier in order to correlate activity over time and space. For identifier in order to correlate activity over time and space. For
instance: instance:
* IP addresses are used as an identity for the source and * IP addresses are used as an identity for the source and
destination for IP datagrams. destination for IP datagrams.
* QUIC connection identifiers are used to correlate packets * QUIC connection identifiers are used to correlate packets
belonging to the same connection. belonging to the same connection.
* HTTP uses cookies to correlate multiple HTTP requests from the * HTTP uses cookies to correlate multiple HTTP requests from the
same client. same client.
* Email uses email addresses of the form example@example.com * Email uses email addresses of the form example@example.com to
(mailto:example@example.com) to identify senders and receivers. identify senders and receivers.
In general, these identifiers serve a necessary function for protocol In general, these identifiers serve a necessary function for protocol
operations, by allowing them to maintain continuity. However, they operations by allowing them to maintain continuity. However, they
can also create privacy risks. There are two major ways in which can also create privacy risks. There are two major ways in which
those risks manifest: those risks manifest:
* The identifier may itself reveal the user’s identity in some way * The identifier may itself reveal the user's identity in some way
or be tied to an identifier which does, as is the case when E.164 or be tied to an identifier that does, as is the case when E.164
(telephone) numbers are used as identifiers for instant messaging (telephone) numbers are used as identifiers for instant messaging
systems. systems.
* While the identifier may not reveal the user’s identity, it may * While the identifier may not reveal the user's identity, it may
make it possible to link enough of a user’s behavior to threaten make it possible to link enough of a user's behavior to threaten
their privacy, as is the case with HTTP cookies. their privacy, as is the case with HTTP cookies.
Because identifiers are necessary for protocol operation, true Because identifiers are necessary for protocol operation, true
anonymity is very difficult to achieve, but there are practices which anonymity is very difficult to achieve, but there are practices that
promote user privacy even when identifiers are used. promote user privacy even when identifiers are used.
Impacts: Impacts:
* Right to non-discrimination * Right to non-discrimination
* Right to freedom of expression * Right to freedom of expression
* Right to political participation * Right to political participation
* Right to freedom of assembly and association * Right to freedom of assembly and association
4.15.1. Pseudonymity 4.15.1. Pseudonymity
In general, user privacy is better preserved when identifiers are In general, user privacy is better preserved when identifiers are
pseudonymous (not tied to a user’s real-world identity). pseudonymous (not tied to a user's real-world identity).
Example: In the development of the IPv6 protocol, it was discussed to Example: In the development of the IPv6 protocol, it was discussed to
embed a Media Access Control (MAC) address into unique IP addresses. embed a Media Access Control (MAC) address into unique IP addresses.
This would make it possible for eavesdroppers and other information This would make it possible for eavesdroppers and other information
collectors to identify when different addresses used in different collectors to identify when different addresses used in different
transactions actually correspond to the same node. This is why transactions actually correspond to the same node. This is why
standardization efforts like Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address standardization efforts like "Temporary Address Extensions for
Autoconfiguration in IPv6 [RFC4941] and MAC address randomization Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6" [RFC8981] and MAC
[draft-zuniga-mac-address-randomization] have been pursued. address randomization [MAC-ADDRESS-RANDOMIZATION] have been pursued.
Note that it is often attractive to try to create a pseudonym from a Note that it is often attractive to try to create a pseudonym from a
persistent identifier. This can be very difficult to do correctly in persistent identifier. This can be very difficult to do correctly in
a way that does not allow for recovering the persistent identifiers. a way that does not allow for recovering the persistent identifiers.
Example: A common practice in Web tracking is to “encrypt” email Example: A common practice in web tracking is to "encrypt" email
addresses by hashing them, thus allegedly making them “non-personally addresses by hashing them, thus allegedly making them "non-personally
identifying”. However, because hash functions are public operations, identifying". However, because hash functions are public operations,
it is possible to dictionary search candidate email addresses and it is possible to do a dictionary search for candidate email
recover the original address [email-hashing]. addresses and recover the original address [Email-hashing].
4.15.2. Unlinkability 4.15.2. Unlinkability
Even true pseudonymous identifiers can present a privacy risk if they Even true pseudonymous identifiers can present a privacy risk if they
are used across a wide enough scope. User privacy is better are used across a wide enough scope. User privacy is better
preserved if identifiers have limited scope both in time and space. preserved if identifiers have limited scope both in time and space.
Example: An example is Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Example: An example is the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)
where sending a persistent identifier as the client name was not where sending a persistent identifier as the client name was not
mandatory but, in practice, done by many implementations, before mandatory but, in practice, done by many implementations before DHCP
[RFC7844]. [RFC7844].
Example: Third party cookies in HTTP allow trackers to correlate HTTP Example: Third-party cookies in HTTP allow trackers to correlate HTTP
traffic across sites. This is the foundation of a whole ecosystem of traffic across sites. This is the foundation of a whole ecosystem of
Web tracking. Increasingly, Web browsers are restricting the use of web tracking. Increasingly, web browsers are restricting the use of
third party cookies in order to protect user privacy. third-party cookies in order to protect user privacy.
4.16. Censorship resistance 4.16. Censorship Resistance
Question(s): Does your protocol architecture facilitate censorship? Question(s): Does your protocol architecture facilitate censorship?
Does it include “choke points” which are easy to use for censorship? Does it include "choke points" that are easy to use for censorship?
Does it expose identifiers which can be used to selectively block Does it expose identifiers that can be used to selectively block
certain kinds of trafic? Could it be designed to be more censorship certain kinds of traffic? Could it be designed to be more censorship
resistant? Does your protocol make it apparent or transparent when resistant? Does your protocol make it apparent or transparent when
access to a resource is restricted and the reasons why it is access to a resource is restricted and why it is restricted?
restricted?
Explanation: Governments and service providers block or filter Explanation: Governments and service providers block or filter
content or traffic, often without the knowledge of end-users. content or traffic, often without the knowledge of end users
[RFC7754] See [draft-irtf-pearg-censorship] for a survey of [RFC7754]. For a survey of censorship techniques employed across the
censorship techniques employed across the world, which lays out world, see [RFC9505], which lays out protocol properties that have
protocol properties that have been exploited to censor access to been exploited to censor access to information. Censorship
information. Censorship resistance refers to the methods and resistance refers to the methods and measures to prevent Internet
measures to prevent Internet censorship. censorship.
Example: The current design of the Web has a number of architectural Example: The current design of the Web has a number of architectural
choke points where it is possible for censors to intervene. These choke points where it is possible for censors to intervene. These
include obtaining the control of the domain name itself, DNS blocking include obtaining the control of the domain name itself, DNS blocking
at either the protocol layer or at the resolver, IP address blocking, either at the protocol layer or at the resolver, IP address blocking,
and blocking at the Web server. There has been extensive work on and blocking at the web server. There has been extensive work on
content distribution systems which are intended to be more censorship content distribution systems, which are intended to be more
resistant, and some, such as BitTorrent, are in wide use, but these censorship resistant; and some, such as BitTorrent, are in wide use.
systems may have inferior reliability and performance compared to the However, these systems may have inferior reliability and performance
Web (e.g., they do not support active content on the server). compared to the Web (e.g., they do not support active content on the
server).
Example: Identifiers of content exposed within a protocol might be Example: Identifiers of content exposed within a protocol might be
used to facilitate censorship by allowing the censor to determine used to facilitate censorship by allowing the censor to determine
which traffic to block. DNS queries, the “host” request header in an which traffic to block. DNS queries, the "host" request header in an
HTTP request, the Server Name Indication (SNI) in a Transport Layer HTTP request, and the Server Name Indication (SNI) in a Transport
Security (TLS) ClientHello are all examples of protocol elements that Layer Security (TLS) ClientHello are all examples of protocol
can travel in plaintext and be used by censors to identify what elements that can travel in plaintext and be used by censors to
content a user is trying to access. [draft-irtf-pearg-censorship]. identify what content a user is trying to access [RFC9505]. Protocol
Protocol mechanisms such as Encrypted Client Hello mechanisms such as Encrypted ClientHello [TLS-ESNI] or DNS over HTTPS
[I-D.ietf-tls-esni] or DNS over HTTPS [RFC8484] that encrypt metadata [RFC8484] that encrypt metadata provide some level of resistance to
provide some level of resistance to this type of protocol inspection. this type of protocol inspection. Full traffic encryption systems,
Full traffic encryption systems such as Tor [https://torproject.org] such as Tor <https://torproject.org>, can also be used by people to
can also be used by people access otherwise censored resources. access otherwise censored resources.
Example: As noted above, one way to censor Web traffic is to require Example: As noted above, one way to censor web traffic is to require
the server to block it or require internet service providers to block the server to block it or require ISPs to block requests to the
requests to the server. In HTTP, denial or restriction of access can server. In HTTP, denial or restriction of access can be made
be made apparent by the use of status code 451, which allows server apparent by the use of status code 451, which allows server operators
operators and intermediaries to operate with greater transparency in and intermediaries to operate with greater transparency in
circumstances where issues of law or public policy affect their circumstances where issues of law or public policy affect their
operation [RFC7725]. If a protocol potentially enables censorship, operation [RFC7725]. If a protocol potentially enables censorship,
protocol designers should strive towards creating error codes that protocol designers should strive towards creating error codes that
capture different scenarios (blocked due to administrative policy, capture different scenarios (e.g., blocked due to administrative
unavailable because of legal requirements, etc.) to minimize policy, unavailable because of legal requirements, etc.) to minimize
ambiguity for end-users. ambiguity for end users.
Impacts: Impacts:
* Right to freedom of expression * Right to freedom of expression
* Right to political participation * Right to political participation
* Right to participate in cultural life, arts, and science * Right to participate in cultural life, arts, and science
* Right to freedom of assembly and association * Right to freedom of assembly and association
4.17. Outcome Transparency 4.17. Outcome Transparency
Question(s): Are the intended and forseen effects of your protocol Question(s): Are the intended and foreseen effects of your protocol
documented and easily comprehensible? documented and easily comprehensible? Have you described the central
use case(s) for your protocol with a clear description of expected
behavior and how it may, or may not, impact other protocols,
implementations, user expectations, or behavior? Have you reviewed
other protocols that solve similar problems, or made use of similar
mechanisms, to see if there are lessons that can be learned from
their use and misuse?
Explanation: Certain technical choices may have unintended Explanation: Certain technical choices may have unintended
consequences. Have you described the central use case(s) for your consequences.
protocol with a clear description of expected behavior and how it
may, or may not, impact other protocols, implementations, user
expectations, or behavior? Have you reviewed other protocols that
solve similar problems, or make use of similar mechanisms, to see if
there are lessons that can be learnt from their use and misuse?
Example: Lack of authenticity may lead to lack of integrity and Example: Lack of authenticity may lead to lack of integrity and
negative externalities, of which spam is an example. Lack of data negative externalities; of which, spam is an example. Lack of data
that could be used for billing and accounting can lead to so-called that could be used for billing and accounting can lead to so-called
“free” arrangements which obscure the actual costs and distribution "free" arrangements that obscure the actual costs and distribution of
of the costs, for example the barter arrangements that are commonly the costs, for example, the barter arrangements that are commonly
used for Internet interconnection; and the commercial exploitation of used for Internet interconnection, and the commercial exploitation of
personal data for targeted advertising which is the most common personal data for targeted advertising, which is the most common
funding model for the so-called “free” services such as search funding model for the so-called "free" services such as search
engines and social networks. Unexpected outcomes might not be engines and social networks. Unexpected outcomes might not be
technical, but rather architectural, social or economic. Therefore technical but rather architectural, social, or economic. Therefore,
it is of importance to document the intended outcomes and other it is of importance to document the intended outcomes and other
possible outcomes that have been considered. possible outcomes that have been considered.
Impacts: Impacts:
* Right to freedom of expression * Right to freedom of expression
* Right to privacy * Right to privacy
* Right to freedom of assembly and association * Right to freedom of assembly and association
* Right to access to information * Right to access to information
4.18. Accessibility 4.18. Accessibility
Question(s): Is your protocol designed to provide an enabling Question(s): Is your protocol designed to provide an enabling
environment for all? Have you looked at the W3C Web Accessibility environment for all? Have you looked at the W3C Web Accessibility
Initiative for examples and guidance? Initiative for examples and guidance [W3CAccessibility]?
Explanation: Sometimes in the design of protocols, websites, web Explanation: Sometimes in the design of protocols, websites, web
technologies, or web tools, barriers are created that exclude people technologies, or web tools, barriers are created that exclude people
from using the Web. The Internet should be designed to work for all from using the Web. The Internet should be designed to work for all
people, whatever their hardware, software, language, culture, people, whatever their hardware, software, language, culture,
location, or physical or mental ability. When the Internet location, or physical or mental ability. When the Internet
technologies meet this goal, it will be accessible to people with a technologies meet this goal, it will be accessible to people with a
diverse range of hearing, movement, sight, and cognitive ability. diverse range of hearing, movement, sight, and cognitive ability
[W3CAccessibility] [W3CAccessibility].
Example: The HTML protocol as defined in [HTML5] specifically Example: The HTML protocol as defined in [HTML] specifically requires
requires that every image must have an alt attribute (with a few that every image must have an alt attribute (with a few exceptions)
exceptions) to ensure images are accessible for people that cannot to ensure images are accessible for people who cannot themselves
themselves decipher non-text content in web pages. decipher non-text content in web pages.
Another example is the work done in the AVT and AVTCORE working Another example is the work done in the AVT and AVTCORE Working
groups in the IETF that enables text conversation in multimedia, text Groups in the IETF that enables text conversation in multimedia, text
telephony, wireless multimedia and video communications for sign telephony, wireless multimedia, and video communications for sign
language and lip-reading (i.e., [RFC9071]). language and lipreading (i.e., [RFC9071]).
Impacts: Impacts:
* Right to non-discrimination * Right to non-discrimination
* Right to freedom of assembly and association * Right to freedom of assembly and association
* Right to education * Right to education
* Right to political participation * Right to political participation
4.19. Decentralization 4.19. Decentralization
Question(s): Can your protocol be implemented without a single point Question(s): Can your protocol be implemented without a single point
of control? If applicable, can your protocol be deployed in a of control? If applicable, can your protocol be deployed in a
federated manner? Does your protocol create additional centralized federated manner? Does your protocol create additional centralized
points of control? points of control?
Explanation: Decentralization is one of the central technical Explanation: Decentralization is one of the central technical
concepts of the architecture of the Internet, and is embraced as such concepts of the architecture of the Internet and is embraced as such
by the IETF [RFC3935]. It refers to the absence or minimization of by the IETF [RFC3935]. It refers to the absence or minimization of
centralized points of control, a feature that is assumed to make it centralized points of control, a feature that is assumed to make it
easy for new users to join and new uses to unfold [Brown]. It also easy for new users to join and new uses to unfold [Ziewitz]. It also
reduces issues surrounding single points of failure, and distributes reduces issues surrounding single points of failure and distributes
the network such that it continues to function even if one or several the network such that it continues to function even if one or several
nodes are disabled. With the commercialization of the Internet in nodes are disabled. With the commercialization of the Internet in
the early 1990s, there has been a slow move away from the early 1990s, there has been a slow move away from
decentralization, to the detriment of the technical benefits of decentralization, to the detriment of the technical benefits of
having a decentralized Internet. For a more detailed discussion of having a decentralized Internet. For a more detailed discussion of
this topic, please see [arkkoetal]. this topic, please see [Arkko].
Example: The bits traveling the Internet are increasingly susceptible Example: The bits traveling the Internet are increasingly susceptible
to monitoring and censorship, from both governments and ISPs, as well to monitoring and censorship from both governments and ISPs as well
as third (malicious) parties. The ability to monitor and censor is as third (malicious) parties. The ability to monitor and censor is
further enabled by the increased centralization of the network that further enabled by the increased centralization of the network that
creates central infrastructure points that can be tapped into. The creates central infrastructure points that can be tapped into. The
creation of peer-to-peer networks and the development of voice-over- creation of peer-to-peer networks and the development of voice-over-
IP protocols using peer-to-peer technology in combination with IP protocols using peer-to-peer technology in combination with
distributed hash table (DHT) for scalability are examples of how Distributed Hash Table (DHT) for scalability are examples of how
protocols can preserve decentralization [Pouwelse]. protocols can preserve decentralization [Pouwelse].
Impacts: Impacts:
* Right to freedom of expression * Right to freedom of expression
* Right to freedom of assembly and association * Right to freedom of assembly and association
4.20. Remedy 4.20. Remedy
Question(s): Can your protocol facilitate a negatively impacted Question(s): Can your protocol facilitate a negatively impacted
party’s right to remedy without disproportionately impacting other party's right to remedy without disproportionately impacting other
parties’ human rights, especially their right to privacy? parties' human rights, especially their right to privacy?
Explanation: Providing access to remedy by states and corporations is Explanation: Providing access to remedy by states and corporations is
a part of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights a part of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
[UNGP]. Access to remedy may help victims of human rights violations [UNGP]. Access to remedy may help victims of human rights violations
in seeking justice, or allow law enforcement agencies to identify a in seeking justice or allow law enforcement agencies to identify a
possible violator. However, current mechanisms in protocols that try possible violator. However, current mechanisms in protocols that try
to enable ‘attribution’ to individuals impede the exercise of the to enable "attribution" to individuals impede the exercise of the
right to privacy. The former UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of right to privacy. The former UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of
Expression has also argued that anonymity is an inherent part of Expression has also argued that anonymity is an inherent part of
freedom of expression [Kaye]. Considering the potential adverse freedom of expression [Kaye]. Considering the potential adverse
impact of attribution on the right to privacy and freedom of impact of attribution on the right to privacy and freedom of
expression, enabling attribution on an individual level is most expression, enabling attribution on an individual level is most
likely not consistent with human rights. likely not consistent with human rights.
Example: Adding personally identifiable information to data streams Example: Adding personally identifiable information to data streams
as a means to enable the human right to remedy might help in as a means to enable the human right to remedy might help in
identifying a violator of human rights and provide access to remedy, identifying a violator of human rights and provide access to remedy,
but this would disproportionally affect all users right to privacy, but this would disproportionately affect all users right to privacy,
anonymous expression, and association. Furthermore, there are some anonymous expression, and association. Furthermore, there are some
recent advances in enabling abuse detection in end-to-end encrypted recent advances in enabling abuse detection in end-to-end encrypted
messaging systems, which also carry some risk to users’ privacy messaging systems, which also carry some risk to users' privacy
[messenger-franking][hecate]. [Messenger-franking] [Hecate].
Impacts: Impacts:
* Right to remedy * Right to remedy
* Right to security * Right to security
* Right to privacy * Right to privacy
4.21. Misc. considerations 4.21. Miscellaneous Considerations
Question(s): Have you considered potential negative consequences Question(s): Have you considered potential negative consequences
(individual or societal) that your protocol or document might have? (individual or societal) that your protocol or document might have?
Explanation: Publication of a particular RFC under a certain status Explanation: Publication of a particular RFC under a certain status
has consequences. Publication as an Internet Standard as part of the has consequences. Publication as an Internet Standard as part of the
Standards Track may signal to implementers that the specification has Standards Track may signal to implementers that the specification has
a certain level of maturity, operational experience, and consensus. a certain level of maturity, operational experience, and consensus.
Similarly, publication of a specification an experimental document as Similarly, publication of a specification as an experimental document
part of the non-standards track would signal to the community that not part of the Standards Track would signal to the community that
the document “may be intended for eventual standardization but [may] the document "may not be intended to be an Internet Standard, or it
not yet [be] ready” for wide deployment. The extent of the may be intended for eventual standardization but not yet ready" for
deployment, and consequently its overall impact on end-users, may wide deployment [RFC2026]. The extent of the deployment, and
depend on the document status presented in the RFC. See [BCP9] and consequently its overall impact on end users, may depend on the
updates to it for a fuller explanation. document status presented in the RFC. See [RFC2026] and updates to
it for a fuller explanation.
5. Document Status 5. Document Status
This RG document lays out best practices and guidelines for human This research group document lays out best practices and guidelines
rights reviews of network protocols, architectures and other for human rights reviews of network protocols, architectures, and
Internet-Drafts and RFCs. other Internet-Drafts and RFCs.
6. Acknowledgements
Thanks to:
* Corinne Cath-Speth for work on [RFC8280].
* Reese Enghardt, Joe Hall, Avri Doria, Joey Salazar, Corinne Cath-
Speth, Farzaneh Badii, Sandra Braman, Colin Perkins, John Curran,
Eliot Lear, Mallory Knodel, Brian Trammell, Jane Coffin, Eric
Rescorla, Sofía Celi and the hrpc list for reviews and
suggestions.
* Individuals who conducted human rights reviews for their work and
feedback: Amelia Andersdotter, Shane Kerr, Beatrice Martini, Karan
Saini, and Shivan Kaul Sahib.
7. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
Article three of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads: Article three of the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" reads:
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”. "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person"
This article underlines the importance of security and its [UDHR]. This article underlines the importance of security and its
interrelation with human life and liberty, but since human rights are interrelation with human life and liberty; but since human rights are
indivisible, interrelated and interdependent, security is also indivisible, interrelated, and interdependent, security is also
closely linked to other human rights and freedoms. This document closely linked to other human rights and freedoms. This document
seeks to strengthen human rights, freedoms, and security by relating seeks to strengthen human rights, freedoms, and security by relating
and translating these concepts to concepts and practices as they are and translating these concepts to concepts and practices as they are
used in Internet protocol and architecture development. The aim of used in Internet protocol and architecture development. The aim of
this is to secure human rights and thereby improve the this is to secure human rights and thereby improve the
sustainability, usability, and effectiveness of the network. The sustainability, usability, and effectiveness of the network. The
document seeks to achieve this by providing guidelines as done in document seeks to achieve this by providing guidelines as done in
section three of this document. Section 3 of this document.
8. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA. This document has no IANA actions.
9. Research Group Information 8. Research Group Information
The discussion list for the IRTF Human Rights Protocol Considerations The discussion list for the IRTF Human Rights Protocol Considerations
Research Group is located at the e-mail address hrpc@ietf.org Research Group is located at the e-mail address:
(mailto:hrpc@ietf.org). Information on the group and information on <mailto:hrpc@ietf.org>.
how to subscribe to the list is at
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
(https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc)
Archives of the list can be found at: https://www.irtf.org/mail- Information on the group and information on how to subscribe to the
archive/web/hrpc/current/index.html (https://www.irtf.org/mail- list is at: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc>.
archive/web/hrpc/current/index.html)
10. Informative References Archives of the list can be found at:
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hrpc/>.
[arkkoetal] 9. Informative References
Arkko, J., Trammell, B., Notthingham, M., Huitema, C.,
Thomson, M., Tantsure, J., and N. ten Oever, [Arkko] Arkko, J., Trammell, B., Nottingham, M., Huitema, C.,
Thomson, M., Tantsura, J., and N. ten Oever,
"Considerations on Internet Consolidation and the Internet "Considerations on Internet Consolidation and the Internet
Architecture", 2019, Architecture", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
arkko-iab-internet-consolidation-02, 8 July 2019,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-arkko-iab- <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-arkko-iab-
internet-consolidation-02>. internet-consolidation-02>.
[BCP72] IETF, "Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security [Email-hashing]
Considerations", 2003,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp72/>.
[BCP9] Bradner, S. and IETF, "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3", 1996,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2026/>.
[Bless] Bless, R. and C. Orwat, "Values and Networks", 2015.
[Brown] Brown, I. and M. Ziewitz, "A Prehistory of Internet
Governance", Research Handbook on Governance of the
Internet. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar , 2013.
[draft-ietf-ohai-ohttp]
Thomson, M. and C.A. Wood, "Oblivious DNS Over HTTPS",
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
ohai-ohttp>.
[draft-irtf-pearg-censorship]
Hall, J., Aaron, M., Adams, S., Jones, B., and N.
Feamster, "A Survey of Worldwide Censorship Techniques",
2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-pearg-censorship>.
[draft-zuniga-mac-address-randomization]
Zuniga, J.C., Bernardos, C.J., and A. Andersdotter, "MAC
address randomization", 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-madinas-mac-
address-randomization>.
[email-hashing]
Acar, G., Englehardt, S., and A. Narayanan, "Four cents to Acar, G., Englehardt, S., and A. Narayanan, "Four cents to
deanonymize: Companies reverse hashed email addresses", deanonymize: Companies reverse hashed email addresses",
n.d., <https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2018/04/09/four- April 2018, <https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2018/04/09/
cents-to-deanonymize-companies-reverse-hashed-email- four-cents-to-deanonymize-companies-reverse-hashed-email-
addresses/>. addresses/>.
[FIArch] "Future Internet Design Principles", January 2012, [FIArch] Papadimitriou, D., Zahariadis, T., Martinez-Julia, P.,
<http://www.future-internet.eu/uploads/media/ Papafili, I., Morreale, V., Torelli, F., Sales, B., and P.
FIArch_Design_Principles_V1.0.pdf>. Demeester, "Design Principles for the Future Internet
Architecture", The Future Internet, pp. 55-67,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-30241-1_6, January 2012,
<https://link.springer.com/
chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-30241-1_6>.
[FREAK] "Tracking the FREAK Attack", 2015, [FREAK] University of Michigan, "Tracking the FREAK Attack",
Wayback Machine archive, March 2015,
<https://web.archive.org/web/20150304002021/ <https://web.archive.org/web/20150304002021/
https://freakattack.com/>. https://freakattack.com/>.
[geekfeminism] [Hecate] Issa, R., Alhaddad, N., and M. Varia, "Hecate, Abuse
Geek Feminism Wiki, "Pseudonymity", 2015, Reporting in Secure Messengers with Sealed Sender", 31st
<http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Pseudonymity>. USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 22), pp
2335-2352, August 2022,
[hecate] Issa, R., Alhaddad, N., and M. Varia, "Hecate, Abuse <https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity22/
Reporting in Secure Messengers with Sealed Sender", 2022, presentation/issa>.
<https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/1686>.
[Hill2014] Hill, R., "Partial Catalog of Human Rights Related to ICT [Hill] Hill, R., "Partial Catalog of Human Rights Related to ICT
Activities", 2014, Activities", May 2014,
<http://www.apig.ch/UNIGE%20Catalog.pdf>. <http://www.apig.ch/UNIGE%20Catalog.pdf>.
[HR-RT] "Human Rights Reviews", 2022, [HR-RT] "IRTF-HRPC / reviews", commit 3f5fbff, December 2020,
<https://github.com/IRTF-HRPC/reviews>. <https://github.com/IRTF-HRPC/reviews>.
[HTML5] W3C, "HTML5", 2014, <https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/>. [HTML] WHATWG, "HTML Living Standard", August 2024,
<https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/>.
[https-interception] [HTTPS-interception]
Durumeric, Z., Ma, Z., Springall, D., Barnes, R., Durumeric, Z., Ma, Z., Springall, D., Barnes, R.,
Sullivan, N., Bursztein, E., Bailey, M., Halderman, J., Sullivan, N., Bursztein, E., Bailey, M., Halderman, J.,
and V. Paxson, "The Security Impact of HTTPS and V. Paxson, "The Security Impact of HTTPS
Interception", 2017. Interception", NDSS Symposium 2017,
DOI 10.14722/ndss.2017.23456, February 2017,
[I-D.ietf-mls-protocol] <https://doi.org/10.14722/ndss.2017.23456>.
Barnes, R., Beurdouche, B., Robert, R., Millican, J.,
Omara, E., and K. Cohn-Gordon, "The Messaging Layer
Security (MLS) Protocol", 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mls-
protocol/>.
[I-D.ietf-tls-esni]
Rescorla, E., Oku, K., Sullivan, N., and C. A. Wood, "TLS
Encrypted Client Hello", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-tls-esni-17, 9 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
esni-17>.
[ICCPR] United Nations General Assembly, "International Covenant [ICCPR] United Nations General Assembly, "International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights", 1976, on Civil and Political Rights", December 1966,
<http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/ <https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-
CCPR.aspx>. mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-
political-rights>.
[ICESCR] United Nations General Assembly, "International Covenant [ICESCR] United Nations General Assembly, "International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights", 1966, on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights", December 1966,
<http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/ <https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-
CESCR.aspx>. mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-
social-and-cultural-rights>.
[IRP] Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition, "10 [IRP] Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition, "10
Internet Rights & Principles", 2014, Internet Rights & Principles",
<http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/wp- <https://internetrightsandprinciples.org/campaign/>.
content/uploads/2014/06/
IRPC_10RightsandPrinciples_28May2014-11.pdf>.
[Kaye] Kaye, D., "The use of encryption and anonymity in digital [Jorgensen]
communications", 2015, Jørgensen, R. F., "An internet bill of rights", Research
<https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRbodies/HRC/RegularSessions/ Handbook on Governance of the Internet, edited by Ian
Session29/Documents/A.HRC.29.32_AEV.doc>. Brown. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing,
DOI 10.4337/9781849805025.00022, April 2013,
<https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849805025.00022>.
[Logjam] Adrian, D., Bhargavan, K., and . et al, "Imperfect Forward [Kaye] Kaye, D., "Report of the Special Rapporteur on the
Secrecy, How Diffie-Hellman Fails in Practice", 2015, Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of
<https://weakdh.org/imperfect-forward-secrecy-ccs15.pdf>. Opinion and Expression, David Kaye", A/HRC/29/32, May
2015, <https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/798709?v=pdf>.
[messenger-franking] [Logjam] Adrian, D., Bhargavan, K., Durumeric, Z., Gaudry, P.,
Green, M., Halderman, J., Heninger, N., Springall, D.,
Thomé, E., Valenta, L., VanderSloot, B., Wustrow, E.,
Zanella-Béguelin, S., and P. Zimmerman, "Imperfect Forward
Secrecy: How Diffie-Hellman Fails in Practice", CCS '15:
Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer
and Communications Security, pp 5-17,
DOI 10.1145/2810103.2813707, October 2015,
<https://doi.org/10.1145/2810103.2813707>.
[MAC-ADDRESS-RANDOMIZATION]
Zúñiga, J. C., Bernardos, C. J., Ed., and A. Andersdotter,
"Randomized and Changing MAC Address State of Affairs",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-madinas-mac-
address-randomization-15, 15 July 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-madinas-
mac-address-randomization-15>.
[Messenger-franking]
Grubbs, P., Lu, J., and T. Ristenpart, "Message Franking Grubbs, P., Lu, J., and T. Ristenpart, "Message Franking
via Committing Authenticated Encryption", 2017, via Committing Authenticated Encryption", Cryptology
ePrint Archive, Paper 2017/664, July 2017,
<https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/664>. <https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/664>.
[newegg] Mullin, J., "Newegg on trial: Mystery company TQP rewrites [Newegg] Mullin, J., "Newegg on trial: Mystery company TQP rewrites
the history of encryption", 2013, <http://arstechnica.com/ the history of encryption", Ars Technica, November 2013,
tech-policy/2013/11/newegg-on-trial-mystery-company-tqp- <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/newegg-on-
re-writes-the-history-of-encryption/>. trial-mystery-company-tqp-re-writes-the-history-of-
encryption/>.
[notewell] IETF, "Note Well", 2015, [Note-well]
<https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html>. IETF, "Note Well",
<https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well/>.
[patentpolicy] [Orwat] Orwat, C. and R. Bless, "Values and Networks: Steps Toward
W3C, "W3C Patent Policy", 2004, Exploring their Relationships", ACM SIGCOMM Computer
Communication Review, vol. 46, no. 2, pp 25-31,
DOI 10.1145/2935634.2935640, May 2016,
<https://doi.org/10.1145/2935634.2935640>.
[Patent-policy]
Weitzner, D., "W3C Patent Policy", W3C Recommendation,
February 2004,
<https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/>. <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/>.
[Penney] Penney, J., "Chilling Effects: Online Surveillance and [Penney] Penney, J., "Chilling Effects: Online Surveillance and
Wikipedia Use", 2016, <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ Wikipedia Use", Berkeley Technology Law Journal, vol. 31,
no. 1, pp 117-182, DOI 10.15779/Z38SS13, September 2016,
<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=2769645>. papers.cfm?abstract_id=2769645>.
[Pouwelse] Pouwelse, Ed, J., "Media without censorship", 2012, [Pouwelse] Pouwelse, J., Ed., "Media without censorship (CensorFree)
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pouwelse-censorfree- scenarios", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
scenarios>. pouwelse-censorfree-scenarios-02, 22 October 2012,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-pouwelse-
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793, censorfree-scenarios-02>.
DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>. November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[RFC1958] Carpenter, B., Ed., "Architectural Principles of the [RFC1958] Carpenter, B., Ed., "Architectural Principles of the
Internet", RFC 1958, DOI 10.17487/RFC1958, June 1996, Internet", RFC 1958, DOI 10.17487/RFC1958, June 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1958>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1958>.
[RFC1984] IAB and IESG, "IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic [RFC1984] IAB and IESG, "IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic
skipping to change at page 33, line 5 skipping to change at line 1450
[RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and [RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, DOI 10.17487/RFC2277, Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, DOI 10.17487/RFC2277,
January 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2277>. January 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2277>.
[RFC3365] Schiller, J., "Strong Security Requirements for Internet [RFC3365] Schiller, J., "Strong Security Requirements for Internet
Engineering Task Force Standard Protocols", BCP 61, Engineering Task Force Standard Protocols", BCP 61,
RFC 3365, DOI 10.17487/RFC3365, August 2002, RFC 3365, DOI 10.17487/RFC3365, August 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3365>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3365>.
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.
[RFC3724] Kempf, J., Ed., Austein, R., Ed., and IAB, "The Rise of [RFC3724] Kempf, J., Ed., Austein, R., Ed., and IAB, "The Rise of
the Middle and the Future of End-to-End: Reflections on the Middle and the Future of End-to-End: Reflections on
the Evolution of the Internet Architecture", RFC 3724, the Evolution of the Internet Architecture", RFC 3724,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3724, March 2004, DOI 10.17487/RFC3724, March 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3724>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3724>.
[RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF", [RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004, BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3935>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3935>.
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005, RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.
[RFC4101] Rescorla, E. and IAB, "Writing Protocol Models", RFC 4101, [RFC4101] Rescorla, E. and IAB, "Writing Protocol Models", RFC 4101,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4101, June 2005, DOI 10.17487/RFC4101, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4101>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4101>.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>.
[RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2", [RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007, FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>.
[RFC5321] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321, [RFC5321] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, October 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5321>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5321>.
[RFC5646] Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying [RFC5646] Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying
Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646, Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646,
September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5646>. September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5646>.
[RFC6108] Chung, C., Kasyanov, A., Livingood, J., Mody, N., and B. [RFC6108] Chung, C., Kasyanov, A., Livingood, J., Mody, N., and B.
Van Lieu, "Comcast's Web Notification System Design", Van Lieu, "Comcast's Web Notification System Design",
RFC 6108, DOI 10.17487/RFC6108, February 2011, RFC 6108, DOI 10.17487/RFC6108, February 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6108>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6108>.
[RFC6235] Boschi, E. and B. Trammell, "IP Flow Anonymization
Support", RFC 6235, DOI 10.17487/RFC6235, May 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6235>.
[RFC6365] Hoffman, P. and J. Klensin, "Terminology Used in [RFC6365] Hoffman, P. and J. Klensin, "Terminology Used in
Internationalization in the IETF", BCP 166, RFC 6365, Internationalization in the IETF", BCP 166, RFC 6365,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6365, September 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6365, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6365>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6365>.
[RFC6701] Farrel, A. and P. Resnick, "Sanctions Available for [RFC6701] Farrel, A. and P. Resnick, "Sanctions Available for
Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy", RFC 6701, Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy", RFC 6701,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6701, August 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6701, August 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6701>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6701>.
skipping to change at page 35, line 40 skipping to change at line 1572
[RFC8890] Nottingham, M., "The Internet is for End Users", RFC 8890, [RFC8890] Nottingham, M., "The Internet is for End Users", RFC 8890,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8890, August 2020, DOI 10.17487/RFC8890, August 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8890>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8890>.
[RFC8980] Arkko, J. and T. Hardie, "Report from the IAB Workshop on [RFC8980] Arkko, J. and T. Hardie, "Report from the IAB Workshop on
Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol
Development", RFC 8980, DOI 10.17487/RFC8980, February Development", RFC 8980, DOI 10.17487/RFC8980, February
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8980>. 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8980>.
[RFC8981] Gont, F., Krishnan, S., Narten, T., and R. Draves,
"Temporary Address Extensions for Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 8981,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8981, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8981>.
[RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based [RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021, DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.
[RFC9071] Hellström, G., "RTP-Mixer Formatting of Multiparty Real- [RFC9071] Hellström, G., "RTP-Mixer Formatting of Multiparty Real-
Time Text", RFC 9071, DOI 10.17487/RFC9071, July 2021, Time Text", RFC 9071, DOI 10.17487/RFC9071, July 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9071>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9071>.
[Saltzer] Saltzer, J.H., Reed, D.P., and D.D. Clark, "End-to-End [RFC9293] Eddy, W., Ed., "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)",
Arguments in System Design", ACM TOCS, Vol 2, Number 4, STD 7, RFC 9293, DOI 10.17487/RFC9293, August 2022,
November 1984, pp 277-288. , 1984. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9293>.
[UDHR] United Nations General Assembly, "The Universal [RFC9420] Barnes, R., Beurdouche, B., Robert, R., Millican, J.,
Declaration of Human Rights", 1948, Omara, E., and K. Cohn-Gordon, "The Messaging Layer
<http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/>. Security (MLS) Protocol", RFC 9420, DOI 10.17487/RFC9420,
July 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9420>.
[UNGP] United Nations, "United Nations Guiding Principles on [RFC9505] Hall, J. L., Aaron, M. D., Andersdotter, A., Jones, B.,
Business and Human Rights", 2011, Feamster, N., and M. Knodel, "A Survey of Worldwide
<https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/ Censorship Techniques", RFC 9505, DOI 10.17487/RFC9505,
guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf>. November 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9505>.
[Saltzer] Saltzer, J. H., Reed, D. P., and D. D. Clark, "End-to-end
arguments in system design", ACM Transactions on Computer
Systems, vol. 2, no. 4, pp 277-288,
DOI 10.1145/357401.357402, November 1984,
<https://doi.org/10.1145/357401.357402>.
[TLS-ESNI] Rescorla, E., Oku, K., Sullivan, N., and C. A. Wood, "TLS
Encrypted Client Hello", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-tls-esni-20, 4 August 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
esni-20>.
[UDHR] United Nations General Assembly, "Universal Declaration of
Human Rights", December 1948, <https://www.un.org/en/
about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights>.
[UNGP] United Nations, "Guiding Principles on Business and Human
Rights: Implementing the United Nations 'Protect, Respect
and Remedy' Framework", January 2012,
<https://www.ohchr.org/en/publications/reference-
publications/guiding-principles-business-and-human-
rights>.
[UNHR] United Nations, "The Core International Human Rights [UNHR] United Nations, "The Core International Human Rights
Instruments and their monitoring bodies", 2011, Instruments and their monitoring bodies",
<https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ <https://www.ohchr.org/en/core-international-human-rights-
coreinstruments.aspx>. instruments-and-their-monitoring-bodies>.
[UNHRC2016] [UNHRC2016]
United Nations Human Rights Council, "UN Human Rights United Nations Human Rights Council, "The promotion,
Council Resolution "The promotion, protection and protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet",
enjoyment of human rights on the Internet" (A/HRC/32/ A/HRC/32/L.20, June 2016,
L.20)", 2016, <https://documents-dds- <https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/845728?ln=en>.
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G16/131/89/PDF/
G1613189.pdf?OpenElement>.
[W3CAccessibility] [W3CAccessibility]
W3C, "Accessibility", 2015, W3C, "Accessibility",
<https://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility>. <https://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility>.
[W3Ci18nDef] [W3Ci18nDef]
W3C, "Localization vs. Internationalization", 2010, Ishida, R. and S. Miller, "Localization vs.
<http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-i18n.en>. Internationalization", December 2005,
<https://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-i18n.en>.
[Zittrain] Zittrain, J., "The Future of the Internet - And How to [Ziewitz] Ziewitz, M. and I. Brown, "A Prehistory of Internet
Stop It", Yale University Press , 2008, Governance", Research Handbook on Governance of the
<https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4455262/ Internet, edited by Ian Brown. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Zittrain_Future%20of%20the%20Internet.pdf?sequence=1>. Publishing, DOI 10.4337/9781849805025.00008, April 2013,
<https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849805025.00008>.
[Zittrain] Zittrain, J., "The Future of the Internet and How to Stop
It", Yale University Press, 2008,
<https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4455262>.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to:
* Corinne Cath-Speth for work on [RFC8280].
* Reese Enghardt, Joe Hall, Avri Doria, Joey Salazar, Corinne Cath-
Speth, Farzaneh Badii, Sandra Braman, Colin Perkins, John Curran,
Eliot Lear, Mallory Knodel, Brian Trammell, Jane Coffin, Eric
Rescorla, Sofía Celi, and the hrpc list for reviews and
suggestions.
* Individuals who conducted human rights reviews for their work and
feedback: Amelia Andersdotter, Shane Kerr, Beatrice Martini, Karan
Saini, and Shivan Kaul Sahib.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Gurshabad Grover Gurshabad Grover
Email: gurshabad@cis-india.org Email: gurshabad@cis-india.org
Niels ten Oever Niels ten Oever
University of Amsterdam University of Amsterdam
Email: mail@nielstenoever.net Email: mail@nielstenoever.net
 End of changes. 202 change blocks. 
676 lines changed or deleted 704 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.