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 might have interpreted Pete's
message the way he did - I also thought Pete was being a bit flippant until
I read it a second time.
I think the point is that when drafting RFC 2026 (and later RFC 2418), those
involved (including Jorge's predecessor as pro bono counsel) were very much
aware of anti-trust rules, and it was certainly in their minds that following
the RFC 2026 process would largely avoid anti-trust issues, without the need
to say so explicitly. Indeed BCP 9 describes what we *should* do (focus on
technical aspects, ensure openness and fairness, disclose IPR) but not what
we shouldn't do. Anti-trust advice tends to describe what we shouldn't do.
That's what the FAQ adds.
Brian