--On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 13:06 -0700 Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If a spec has broad support, it doesn't matter where it came > from. If a spec does not have broad support, it doesn't > matter where it came from. > > The essential concern is reviewing initial and continuing > support. It's an issue for many different possible IETF > activities, not just those with an initial specification > coming from a single source. Dave, As a fairly determined non-lawyer, I believe that careful attention to IETF procedures and norms, including the principle you identify above, is sufficient to keep us out of antitrust problems and that this "FAQ" effort, like the "policy" effort before it, is a waste of the community's time. But perhaps I'm naive and there are things that are driving the IESG (or the IAOC, but I presume you would know about that) to want to do this. _If_ it is worth doing (and, again, I have my doubts) then it is probably worth noting the things that can set off alarms. I have some small reason to believe that a single source specification that is not significantly altered by the WG and that is largely pushed by the organization from which the specification came can set off those alarms should someone later claim to have been damaged by the spec. That is quite independent of your point and the observation that, to the best of my knowledge, "reviewing initial and continuing support" is a sufficient remedy for problems that might occur with a single-source specification for which that level of review did not occur. john