IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification for draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-08.txt

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 01 March 2024 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 4B411C19ECB7 for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 07:25:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=olddog.co.uk
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7xY1MhQTLgOe for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 07:25:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.157]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C83FCC14CE39 for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 07:25:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 421FOrCQ024870; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 15:24:53 GMT
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E88FB4604B; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 15:24:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC94346048; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 15:24:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.249]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 15:24:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([148.252.146.144]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 421FOph3018580 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 1 Mar 2024 15:24:52 GMT
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Jay Daley' <jay@staff.ietf.org>
Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org, 'Lars Eggert' <lars@eggert.org>
References: <170924133688.22191.501196370379528149@ietfa.amsl.com> <1AE485F0-0DD8-4D0B-9581-1F3B2B3ABAA2@staff.ietf.org> <00f301da6bd3$6dfcb380$49f61a80$@olddog.co.uk> <1C8F88D0-F64B-4CCF-99F3-EE3CD181E6D3@staff.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <1C8F88D0-F64B-4CCF-99F3-EE3CD181E6D3@staff.ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2024 15:24:52 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <013e01da6bec$9c086260$d4192720$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQHvVTvP6WSeW8tEKKzRZmxKX2vXkgIF0Fi7AdR7ZncC++ltT7DCe5aw
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 148.252.146.144
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=olddog.co.uk; h=reply-to :from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= 20221128; bh=9CkWdXWd5ua4kbLsti1dq3JCm7VKqTWl3RQ5122sO2o=; b=F2r ktQMrzk2sUXE+2972KAfbznGeAqzQA0pFe78+846UT51N1GDvhvL7M13yIUXBiUK R7WlWrj0zPbQC9FymRFOfkrVh+pbWF1s2QNOT89TSCs88SOMjF5JD0H5D1+JxY0X iyTy3VWkjCYBb5G9y6P6mz/ZhXB6Awm11Lt3cGjEPKfTEOt5lsx53M5liXXiFUh0 HBDToLX98vHtRwW/KogkwC3NqjSatPjADBfBAXSvpiCNWCWxlSl4aTa5IpZsHuT2 L29jUZ8Q1jdr7mnj4dSKBgnMmrvtdZQjD7ZcnVq+2OxwbjDIQaMb4Fx1FdFiwiYO 7s6xnFzj03GPhCpJa3g==
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.0.1002-28226.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--7.408-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--7.408-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.1002-28226.000
X-TMASE-Result: 10--7.408000-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: VPleTT1nwdTH1DfC+QNQxHFPUrVDm6jtC/ExpXrHizzW2YYHslT0I3xT CDOp7liILpwTiKtcxsWJJAvmzNG90bBAQLqGlKivC8FMH3T6F774+BxcbooVzgpxCGjXoPDWUh2 2S5Tkcs/l1EohDK9ptqM8LYEJ4nCcqq1gN0X+hj3wlvzzUUaf2aFiPo/lDWJLC90nqvLLKFag5p C87QfQFufOVcxjDhcwF+tlK4kWqsBTptoDfp6JrMRB0bsfrpPIfiAqrjYtFiS9JPUSa9+aKDIur phfm+xQ/DPuV+GtImI3GfWoXmyO/37cGd19dSFd
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/antitrust-policy/nFo9er2ZCYi5TOafIt0LpoHYVkk>
Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] New Version Notification for draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-08.txt
X-BeenThere: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 01 Mar 2024 15:25:08 -0000

Hey Jay,

>> I think a key piece of advice is missing (yes, I see 4.2). It may be too
>> obvious, but surely you should be saying "individuals are recommended to
>> seek legal advice" somewhere highly prominent. For example, lifting and
>> tweaking a paragraph from BCP79 and placing it at the end of Section 1...
>> 
>>   This document is not intended as legal advice.  Readers are advised
>>   to consult their own legal advisors if they would like a legal
>>   interpretation of antitrust laws, the risks, and their responsibilities.
>
> Section 4.2 is intended to be exactly that so I’m confused as to why you
> would apparently dismiss it and then ask for the same thing?  Is it just a
> matter of where it goes or is the language in 4.2 insufficient or do you
> think we need both 4.2 and the new text above?

Did I dismiss it? 

Maybe it is just the prominence. I wrote my comment having read the Abstract, Introduction, and Section 2. I was starting on Section 3 when the thought occurred. 

A

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email