Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-00.txt

[Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>]

Sorry to pile on, but I just noticed this statement, which
(unintentionally) misrepresents what I wrote:

"I disagree quite strongly with Rob Sayre's suggestion to remove the
"should not discuss" bullet points"

I did not suggest that. I suggested changing the preface of the list to

"As the IETF is a standards development environment where representatives
from competitors are highly likely to be present, participants should be
aware that the following topics may raise antitrust concerns:"

and then deleting the following paragraph containing "it would be
prudent..." because it seems useless.

thanks,
Rob


On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 2:19 PM Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 2:11 PM Brian E Carpenter <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> After further thought, I've decided I disagree quite strongly with Rob
>> Sayre's suggestion to remove the "should not discuss" bullet points. This
>> is not formal legal advice, but it is a warning to anybody who is unaware
>> of the issues.
>>
>
> We'll have to respectfully disagree here--the issue for me is that the
> "warning" is incorrect or misleading in all but the most obvious cases.
>
>
>> Editorial: The draft doesn't use RFC2119 keywords, so Section 2
>> "Terminology" should be deleted.
>>
>
> I think this document is following the guidelines in
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174, because it uses the 2119 words in
> lowercase in many places. It was new to me too, I had to look it up
> yesterday.
>
> thanks,
> Rob
>
>