IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Interoperability and competition [was: Google, etc, and their proprietary protocols]

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Sat, 28 November 2020 05:27 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F2EF3A0FD1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 21:27:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XBjq9SvDrYzp for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 21:27:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C26E3A0FD0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 21:27:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45EFC5C018F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Nov 2020 00:27:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 28 Nov 2020 00:27:21 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=I4i6nUukAGkam5aInniSFFTxkflZ8e/xYRV21yrvP cc=; b=RjiIK9hx0j2QmRKbICKygeHkSKHnrs9/Nk8WzYEVn+jBUV/QjOfWxPxDL D41jjUtA2ZqQ0lfCtgQxOYlqkBXBqG2yQrMHssI4YHY5dc2ZCa9iIXlOlq+KIO33 BqobNpdoeQUbfJbgTyOgryD1qs6g2rzZl7WyK3bN/BkXECByU2hE6lWdwUZ+A1iT PM8nd8m0MRSDrB9TNWtcOK77zI0uWFa+Cpe6auiPKpeKsn9iDoQbMJlMMdu7nscl U1xUuJLFT1A4bBpA5sXWOd4TmJZ7ZeME0AcJMsz3Bw2X4pbA11uL7OyaFN1E2ISG KPuLycqMCvQ4M8t0rhD2OiVeT5Taw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:uN_BX0rgHxmM0IOhjMlhkUJzsjVRs3CqgatyWvqazaXe99zAULSqLQ> <xme:uN_BX6oXQ473Vl4vCJuSPTRjYkQWOFphkRMjanl41-B_RW7MnkwXkWfgLGjsrSedP 2Hyoqfms5QRRw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrudehhedgkeegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeehhfeutdehfe fgfefghfekhefguefgieduueegjeekfeelleeuieffteefueduueenucfkphepuddtkedr vddvuddrudektddrudehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:uN_BX5Mn7A06nEo2uX5yVDc0oq-02W-RQvSugppzg8Fu6VLMuDEYXQ> <xmx:uN_BX75XglOHxAILYhxmXuT6INcO__ZTPa4lKSLiMJO2MUmA2xlXBw> <xmx:uN_BXz7Uv4zriE9NsMysnsa9LuvojYt0H6MXsAQL9Cjdz6CEB6p-pA> <xmx:ud_BX2IADFzoSmTN_GRhyQelJ6hzwt6CfSojLABjoSJBQThFH7mi3w>
Received: from [192.168.1.85] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A6B1E3280059 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Nov 2020 00:27:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Interoperability and competition [was: Google, etc, and their proprietary protocols]
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <d00258b3-ef73-ee93-a47d-2831738d32d1@mtcc.com> <CAHw9_iLcYFkOuRgiyKLH-OnBs1i+Y-8L4ds3areJiT9EbxFs+w@mail.gmail.com> <63549F4D-B0EF-4B2B-9D55-6131D054A896@mnot.net>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <b41c960d-55f0-4765-3a5c-8c0d4b530096@network-heretics.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 00:27:19 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <63549F4D-B0EF-4B2B-9D55-6131D054A896@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/szGlRGzAd3akU0hO5SpdzD_H1go>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 05:27:23 -0000

On 11/27/20 8:52 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> if a competition authority came to us and said "if you create a standard that promotes interoperability for scope_foo_  in timeframe_bar_  using your normal process, we will leverage that in our remedy", would we rise to the occasion?

It's a _very_ interesting question.  On one hand, that seems squarely 
within IETF's scope and purpose.  On another hand, I wonder whether IETF 
consensus would be willing to support the constraints that some 
countries would want to impose, or perhaps, whether different countries 
would want to impose mutually incompatible constraints and be unwilling 
to let IETF sort out the differences.

Figuring out where to draw the line between IETF's purview and the 
various countries' purviews might be a necessary precondition for that 
kind of work.

Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email