On 11/4/2012 12:22 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
Alessandro:
No. We held a BOF to answer exactly that question. The conclusion was that no
new policies were needed, but that educational material was desirable.
Russ
Which is in fact asking the 'burglars whether they should be held
accountable
On 11/3/2012 4:49 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Thu 01/Nov/2012 18:31:47 -0400 Russ Housley wrote:
A formal policy requires IETF consensus, and it would be published
as a BCP in the RFC series.
Isn't that's something the IETF will have do in any case, sooner or later?
AFAICU,
Alessandro:
No. We held a BOF to answer exactly that question. The conclusion was that no
new policies were needed, but that educational material was desirable.
Russ
On Nov 3, 2012, at 7:49 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Thu 01/Nov/2012 18:31:47 -0400 Russ Housley wrote:
A formal
On Thu 01/Nov/2012 18:31:47 -0400 Russ Housley wrote:
A formal policy requires IETF consensus, and it would be published
as a BCP in the RFC series.
Isn't that's something the IETF will have do in any case, sooner or later?
AFAICU, standardization is about establishing the competition rules.
At a high level, I'm curious what the difference is between an FAQ and a formal
policy? I ask since Section 6 of the FAQ seems to be providing instructions on
how IETF participants should conduct themselves, which seems more like a policy
than an FAQ.
Thanks,
David
-Original
A formal policy requires IETF consensus, and it would be published as a BCP in
the RFC series.
Russ
On Nov 1, 2012, at 5:23 PM, David Rudin (LCA) wrote:
At a high level, I'm curious what the difference is between an FAQ and a
formal policy? I ask since Section 6 of the FAQ seems to be
Hi.
A separate conversation stirred up memories of the ones at ANSI
from long ago and suggests something else that should be added
to the list:
* A protocol specification that has the appearance of being
solely the product of a single vendor or other organization is
inherently dangerous and
, October 17, 2012 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: Antitrust FAQ
Hi.
A separate conversation stirred up memories of the ones at ANSI
from long ago and suggests something else that should be added
to the list:
* A protocol specification that has the appearance of being
solely the product of a single vendor
On 10/17/2012 12:23 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
* A protocol specification that has the appearance of being
solely the product of a single vendor or other organization is
inherently dangerous and dangerous to the IETF, not just the
particants. Problems can arise if a standards body
--On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 13:06 -0700 Dave Crocker
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
If a spec has broad support, it doesn't matter where it came
from. If a spec does not have broad support, it doesn't
matter where it came from.
The essential concern is reviewing initial and continuing
On 10/17/2012 08:23 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
* A protocol specification that has the appearance of being
solely the product of a single vendor or other organization is
inherently dangerous and dangerous to the IETF, not just the
particants. Problems can arise if a standards body
Pete, I have not been so frustrated and disappointed reading an IETF
message at any time earlier this year.
I'm disappointed because I'd like to work in an IETf climate where
antitrust and related concerns are taken seriously.
I need to believe that the IESG will take these issues seriously, will
On 10/15/12 7:53 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Pete, I have not been so frustrated and disappointed reading an IETF
message at any time earlier this year.
I'm disappointed because I'd like to work in an IETf climate where
antitrust and related concerns are taken seriously.
I need to believe that the
On 10/15/2012 7:14 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 10/15/12 7:53 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Pete, I have not been so frustrated and disappointed reading an IETF
message at any time earlier this year.
I'm disappointed because I'd like to work in an IETf climate where
antitrust and related concerns are
On 15/10/2012 15:14, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 10/15/12 7:53 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Pete, I have not been so frustrated and disappointed reading an IETF
message at any time earlier this year.
...
Sam, I'm actually quite surprised at your reaction.
In fairness to both of you, I can see why Sam
--On Monday, October 15, 2012 09:14 -0500 Pete Resnick
presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
My concern (along with many other folks)
only kicks in when the collection of this information starts
to look like a formal antitrust *policy*. I'm afraid that
having an antitrust policy starts to lead
I support the reminder, however, would like to add considerations,
suggestions and my questions.
-
I see that it only includes information related to antitrust
The *reminder-document* should
Thanks. These are great responses, and I believe the FAQ would be
significantly improved by working these in.
Sam,
Here are some responses for your consideration.
Jorge
On 10/11/12 3:32 PM, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
Hi, Russ.
In question 2,
I don't understand what several terms are and whether they have any
relation to the standards process.
The one most confusing is agreements to
On 10/11/12 7:00 PM, Jorge Contreras wrote:
7) What should be considered when evaluating the composition of design
teams to avoid antitrust concerns?
Technical expertise, balance of interests (per the discussion in the join
IEEE/IAB/IETF document that was recently released), and no
On 10/12/2012 10:27 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 10/11/12 7:00 PM, Jorge Contreras wrote:
One of the reasons that some of us wanted simply an FAQ and not a new
antitrust policy is because sticking tightly to proper IETF procedures
will almost always avoid a chair getting themselves into antitrust
On 11/10/2012 05:01, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
The current language merely specifies presence at an IETF meeting as the
sole criterion.
It's behaviour at an IETF meeting that we are concerned about. Whether
it occurs in a session, in a corridor, in a private room, or electronically,
it would
On 10/10/2012 9:41 PM, John Levine wrote:
directs two people who are at an IETF meeting to refrain from one having
a sales discussion with the other in private.
Um, could you identify which item under 2 or 3 would describe a
sales discussion?
Saleguy: Buy my product. I'll sell it to
On 10/10/2012 8:41 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
The IETF does not have a formal antitrust policy. In fact, the ANTITRUST BOF
concluded that a formal policy was not needed.
Of course they did - the IETF and its membership seems to want autonomy
and judicial immunity for its actions here... something
Saleguy: Buy my product. I'll sell it to you for US$xxx.
Potential customer: OK, but only if you guarantee me that that's your
best price to any customer for the next 6 moths.
Salesguy: OK.
It's only price fixing if it's a discussion between vendors, but I suppose
I see how
On 10/11/2012 5:53 AM, John R Levine wrote:
It's only price fixing if it's a discussion between vendors, but I
suppose I see how people who didn't understand the issues could
misunderstand it.
Exactly. And this FAQ is, presumably, for people who do not already
understand the issues.
On 10/11/2012 12:34 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 11/10/2012 05:01, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
The current language merely specifies presence at an IETF meeting as the
sole criterion.
It's behaviour at an IETF meeting that we are concerned about. Whether
it occurs in a session, in a corridor,
On 10/11/2012 6:00 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 10/11/2012 5:53 AM, John R Levine wrote:
It's only price fixing if it's a discussion between vendors, but I
suppose I see how people who didn't understand the issues could
misunderstand it.
Exactly. And this FAQ is, presumably, for people who
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 8:41 PM, IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote:
The IETF does not have a formal antitrust policy. In fact, the ANTITRUST BOF
concluded that a formal policy was not needed. However, educational material
is needed so that all IETF participants are aware of the the law. The
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 10/10/2012 9:41 PM, John Levine wrote:
directs two people who are at an IETF meeting to refrain from one having
a sales discussion with the other in private.
Um, could you identify which item under 2 or 3 would describe a
sales
Hi, Russ.
In question 2,
I don't understand what several terms are and whether they have any
relation to the standards process.
The one most confusing is agreements to restrict output
Also, more detail on what an anticompetitive reason to restrict someone
from the standards process could help.
On 10/10/2012 8:41 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
The IETF does not have a formal antitrust policy. In fact, the ANTITRUST BOF
concluded that a formal policy was not needed. However, educational material
is needed so that all IETF participants are aware of the the law. The first
draft of a FAQ to
directs two people who are at an IETF meeting to refrain from one having
a sales discussion with the other in private.
Um, could you identify which item under 2 or 3 would describe a
sales discussion?
R's,
John
33 matches
Mail list logo
