Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-01.txt

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 23 November 2021 01:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0346D3A0C17 for <>; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 17:30:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.951
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.951 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.852, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ToA2arLb_nvX for <>; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 17:30:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::636]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1D2C3A0C12 for <>; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 17:30:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y8so15667389plg.1 for <>; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 17:30:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZM+HLGD8A0aORnhNsOKnRl2Jx2cbpUpobNDEKRFiCZc=; b=MFM2LjrHRSN/fLPUFFp5CDZyV1VntyMgTkmeE+BfNtlCzPg0THUL3diRqjlIMVaQqJ 17DQAUL1+/o6gYFLfjKR153cTYEW6DzMJiwog9RwpsJnwC/4iKY0jfhNYspYiDnvFoW2 qwY4ptghSAAzqQOFzN8+ApAu+Yc+HUM0mlg1j92LA+nFKDdQgF+pgQiKvl1hnsuslzEi q18zw4JHC+f6Td3T20EJM84Zwo23i8d9UfsyDitVcP/BmX2rLS/fxFmm/0xI2+dGmkQO MVz5InzWRxkOOAJahhhfnW3oEywtzBvNx1KbXKVnjYWZge+oesIpf7YukhyLvggvItqb cxdQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZM+HLGD8A0aORnhNsOKnRl2Jx2cbpUpobNDEKRFiCZc=; b=3YADK+yhe4CdWS3b7VW4onNT72t6EJfSA/wRIdeyfBetoO/QjDDLmOuBvJUZGU24rc L+rRqe6BdEu8Y+flyOXQzoBbg62dnEClFUsSPg4koB3lLdIFn5bHXPfAKMIUnhc1KRDt QnbxXjq1e7NYOA/xeFNWYxWY/p9QEsJ71nRXW8r06YWatIFGZE5y5/D1+nIrZX1d0Hzp z+I2Ft+ySsD9rx9NbHLZ1M3WKOvU+PzVScoEkKmfTXjWXNahclWrle+B12vbjhaEayI2 DklakjmL0uE2mvLZxCFHTGBVMRRz4947l9edNw9TQtnnQ77Q6G8agKIdhk9YnTw/v0/f P0NQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533AIM6WS97cymSVnRHcI2bxA0lwT9uwYQ7D7ccndtZDOzqq1voV 8xjUIZQUXI9ubAyU9DF1Zg3L21zhPKZb/g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxGYz/W6UllWohTD9nMLe2awlfOKrKrplWtJE7kdKh6MsW3Tiz9It2JzspFYko6UqTllq1x5Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:cf85:: with SMTP id i5mr38804018pju.101.1637631018210; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 17:30:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e003:102d:e801:80b2:5c79:2266:e431? ([2406:e003:102d:e801:80b2:5c79:2266:e431]) by with ESMTPSA id e11sm8597776pjl.20.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Nov 2021 17:30:17 -0800 (PST)
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <>, Stephen Farrell <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 14:30:14 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 01:30:23 -0000

On 23-Nov-21 05:44, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> While there are some participants for whom competition law is not an
> issue, there are many participants for whom it is an issue.

I have always felt it was relevant to me, whether or not I worked for
a large IT company. How can it *not* be relevant to anyone who is
actively participating in discussions with multiple companies? Suppose
somebody from company A asks you to tell somebody from company B
about A's pricing policy? Surely, doing that would be illegal.
> The intended approach is a short statements that highlights a very few
> aspects of competition law that should be kept in mind by anyone to whom
> they apply.

Which is (I think) everybody, because of the above thought experiment.

>   From where I sit, it is important to have the note well pointer as it
> is very difficult to claim we as a community have made an effort to
> inform people about the issue if we bury the results in an informational
> RFC no one ever hears about.

I agree. The reason I think this should not be a BCP is because it is
in no way a change to the IETF's rules. But there is a sound argument
that a warning should be given.

> We (the co-authors) are still trying to work out the wording for the
> much shorter approach.
> Yours,
> Joel
> On 11/22/2021 11:37 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I'm not that convinced we need to do anything but no
>> harm having the discussion, so seems reasonable for
>> you and/or Joel to make a modified proposal.
>> On 22/11/2021 15:28, Brad Biddle wrote:
>>> I recommend that that we develop an explicit statement that addresses
>>> antitrust compliance, and that we reference that statement in the Note
>>> Well text that is routinely shown to participants.
>> If you do do the above, please take into account that
>> competition law is not at all a direct issue for a lot
>> of IETF participants and we don't want to ever give the
>> impression that those for whom competition law etc is
>> a direct issue are more important participants. (For me
>> that's a reason to not put that in the Note Well text
>> which is already getting way too cumbersome.)
>> Cheers,
>> S.