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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 04/09/2021 00:16, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 04-Sep-21 10:23, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> 
>> Hmm. I think "should not discuss" and that list are too high or the
>> wrong barrier. I reckon it'd take some discussion to get that
>> right. I don't object to trying to get it right, but would object
>> to the current text.
>> 
>> As an example, it seems to me entirely fine to (carefully:-)
>> discuss the fact that a thing(*) is unencumbered as far as we know
>> and how that affects implementations that might use that thing,
>> especially those taking an open source approach.
> 
> Sorry, which of the bullets in section 5 says we should not discuss
> that? 

Perhaps it depends on how one interprets the text. I'd not
want discussion as in the example above to be cutoff by
someone claiming that "no cost" is a price (1st bullet), nor
that one can't consider popular open source library features
(or the lack thereof) because that's a "supply chain" issue
(bullet 4). Again though - I'm not against the draft but
do think the text needs non-trivial discussion before hitting
a last call, which'd affect my answer to a "dispatch"
question: basically I'd not be ok with pushing this ASAP as
an AD sponsored document, which I think was your reaction.
I'd maybe be fine with AD sponsored after some community discussion, but 
not with the text as-is.

Cheers,
S.

> We have specific non-BCP guidance about that sort of discussion
> in RFC3699.
> 
> Brian
> 
>> 
>> Cheers, S.
>> 
>> (*) s/thing/codec/ or s/thing/encryption alg/ both work with 
>> differences.
>> 
>> On 03/09/2021 23:07, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> Thankyou for this draft. Assuming the question will be put, I
>>> strongly support dispatching it ASAP as an individual submission
>>> sponsored by the General AD.
>>> 
>>> I have one suggestion. The Recommendations very correctly list
>>> 'product pricing' as a forbidden topic. That should probably be
>>> 'product and service pricing'. However, a topic of technical
>>> importance in service provision is *metrics* used for measuring
>>> services. I think the draft could usefully discuss the dividing
>>> line between technical specifications of metrics (OK), mechanisms
>>> for communicating metrics (OK), mechanisms for communicating
>>> pricing of metrics (presumably OK), worked examples with example
>>> monetary values (presumably OK) and actual monetary values (not
>>> OK).
>>> 
>>> FYA:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-carpenter-metrics-00
>>> 
>>> Regards Brian Carpenter
>>> 
>>> On 31-Aug-21 13:42, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
>>>> Internet-Drafts directories.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Title           : Antitrust Guidelines for IETF Particiants 
>>>> Authors         : Joel M. Halpern Brad Biddle Jay Daley 
>>>> Filename        : draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-00.txt 
>>>> Pages           : 6 Date            : 2021-08-30
>>>> 
>>>> Abstract: This document provides guidance for IETF participants
>>>> on compliance with antitrust laws and how to reduce antitrust
>>>> risks in connection with IETF activities.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: 
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
There is also an HTML version available at:
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-00.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce
>>>> mailing list [e-mail] 
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce 
>>>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or
>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>>>> 
>>>