On 15/10/2012 15:14, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 10/15/12 7:53 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Pete, I have not been so frustrated and disappointed reading an IETF
>> message at any time earlier this year.
...
> Sam, I'm actually quite surprised at your reaction.
In fairness to both of you, I can see why Sam might have interpreted Pete's
message the way he did - I also thought Pete was being a bit flippant until
I read it a second time.
I think the point is that when drafting RFC 2026 (and later RFC 2418), those
involved (including Jorge's predecessor as pro bono counsel) were very much
aware of anti-trust rules, and it was certainly in their minds that following
the RFC 2026 process would largely avoid anti-trust issues, without the need
to say so explicitly. Indeed BCP 9 describes what we *should* do (focus on
technical aspects, ensure openness and fairness, disclose IPR) but not what
we shouldn't do. Anti-trust advice tends to describe what we shouldn't do.
That's what the FAQ adds.
Brian