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, 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?
Antitrust cannot be exempted. Whether the IETF wants to allow the rule
of law into its process or not that rule exists and sooner or later this
chicken will come home to roost and there will be a major change in the
IETF. Like it will become legally accountable for the damages it creates
with these actions.
This isnt about stopping innovation - its about making the Innovators
and particularly their sponsors accountable for the transparency which
doesnt exist in the IETF's processes and damages to any number of
participants therein.
Sorry, this is about playing fair - with everyone!
Todd
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.