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

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

I am trying to put together a ntoe about how the authors would liek to 
progress this.   That does require a little cooridination, so consider 
this a general response to your concern about discussion, which will get 
refined.

What I would like to see is
1) Discussion of dispatching in gendispatch
2) determination in gendispatch of where we think the discussion of the 
substance belongs.  That could be gendispatch, ietf@, or some other 
list.  I'll go wherever the community tells me.
3) Dispatch the draft to "AD sponsorship with discussion by the 
community".  Largely because writing a charter and chartering a working 
group for one document seems rather odd.
4) Have discussion of the content in the agreed venue.
5) With luck, agree on text, get rough consensus, publish as a BCP, and 
update the Note Well.

Please do not read too much into exact wording above.  While I am trying 
to be careful, it is late and I have not talked to my co-authors.  I am 
posting this now because responding the the issue Stephen raises seems 
important.

Yours,
Joel

On 9/3/2021 8:56 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>