Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-03.txt

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

It seems to me that you are making two arguments, one of which I think I
agree with and
one I do not.

As noted in my review, I think the language in the draft is overbroad, and
I agree with
you that discussing whether a specific technical choice tends to reinforce
or reduce
entry barriers should in fact be in scope.

I disagree, however, with your argument that as an academic you don't need
to
avoid certain topics, because, as noted by mnot and others, the question
is what conditions this creates for others. You are, of course, free to
raise
those topics in your own newsletter, Twitter, etc. but the question is what
are appropriate topics for the IETF.

-Ekr


On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 3:24 PM Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> (BTW, with regards the dispatch question I agree with ekr.)
>
> On 23/10/2022 23:11, Rob Sayre wrote:
> > I can't think of anything I would be interested in, but maybe I don't
> > understand your position.
>
> I read the draft as telling us we ought not discuss whether
> or not some proposed protocol design re-enforces the mobile
> OS duopoly.
>
> S.
>
> --
> Gendispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>