IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [antitrust-policy] Proprietary information [An Antitrust Policy for the IETF]

Jorge Contreras <cntreras@gmail.com> Mon, 16 January 2012 00:07 UTC

Return-Path: <cntreras@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C8C021F850D for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:07:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.201, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GVW2KHZPH4FF for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:06:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47D6C21F84FF for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:06:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wera1 with SMTP id a1so912335wer.31 for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:06:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=bi3qJgrQLNXtLH4H6X9C+jdjESHxtb5maScbMB3Ykho=; b=HpUAXe7fkuyaUq4XM+7Fh+CQhwSQsnr59oNb7gN88sTwF3ZzvGT/FaNFCF3+sPOKh4 mYD9iJdGSsm0a/ecHOeDMh5u8sFS9a+XX2VsA1RVGpE3jDAPjRa/57caV2/VFVM5R4up Ext9PEv3ECxvbbXBGIEaDRqtfMcYmzvzjSlXM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.138.1 with SMTP id z1mr2663375wei.55.1326672418418; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:06:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.87.1 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:06:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4F136208.1000100@gmail.com>
References: <20120110205143.6FDCF21F86F9@ietfa.amsl.com> <A44BB68F-19AB-462B-8A65-ACA855EA2ED1@vigilsec.com> <DE7B7ADC-F160-4633-8FD0-8453573D9830@vigilsec.com> <4F136208.1000100@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:06:58 -0600
Message-ID: <CAP0PwYYU2o5eDgTBpf1-UrdH3Z2cUpinn+Y0a=9P9-tqVHLT-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jorge Contreras <cntreras@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e6de00963baf5604b699fed2"
Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] Proprietary information [An Antitrust Policy for the IETF]
X-BeenThere: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss the need for an antitrust or competition policy for the IETF." <antitrust-policy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/antitrust-policy>, <mailto:antitrust-policy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/antitrust-policy>
List-Post: <mailto:antitrust-policy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:antitrust-policy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy>, <mailto:antitrust-policy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:07:00 -0000

On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...
> > IETF meeting participants MUST NOT:
>
> ...
> >  - present or exchange proprietary information; or
>
> I'd like to see this stated in a way that defines what "proprietary
> information" means. It's quite common for people to describe proprietary
> technology during IETF discussions, RFC 2026 describes how this fits into
> the IETF process, and there are numerous RFCs that describe proprietary
> technology. What type of proprietary information is problematic?
>
>   Brian
>

Brian -- it's not clear to me that this statement is necessary in this
document, as Section 5.2 of RFC 5378 already provides:

No information or document that is subject to any requirement of
confidentiality or any restriction on its dissemination may be
submitted as a Contribution or otherwise considered in any part ofthe
IETF Standards Process, and there must be no assumption of
anyconfidentiality obligation with respect to any Contribution.

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status