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 for burglarizing things"... nice oversight you have created
- oh wait, there is no oversight here, this is the IETF...
Todd
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 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.
Key concepts, such as open and fair participation to such activity,
are already treated in some BCPs. Why would antitrust be exempted?
Please review the FAQ, and if you discover any issues raise them in
response to this message.
Technical details of new protocols are an example of competitive
information. When patents are involved, that would belong to the last
bullet of question 3, "procurement and purchasing". Thus, sharing
such info might sound as a precursor to collusion. However, question
6 cannot be applied to this case.
--
Regards TSG
"Ex-Cruce-Leo"
//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended
recipient.