> On 13 Dec 2024, at 09:43, Jay Daley <j...@staff.ietf.org> wrote: > > Hi Daniel > >> On 13 Dec 2024, at 06:28, D. J. Bernstein <d...@cr.yp.to> wrote: >> >> RFC 9680 coauthor writes: >>> If, on the other hand, your concern is that there has been a failure >>> of IETF processes that has created an antitrust risk, then the >>> appropriate course of action is to follow the appropriate IETF process >>> for addressing that. >> >> RFC 9680 says that it's "generally inappropriate" to discuss "market >> opportunities for specific companies". What's the IETF process for >> addressing violations of RFC 9680? > > RFC 9680 is not a policy but an informational document, including information > on an escalation path for antitrust concerns, and so there is no concept of > “violations of RFC 9680”. RFC 9680 carefully says “generally inappropriate” > for the topics to avoid because there is a vast grey area here. The decision > on whether or not any specific action is inappropriate rests with the IETF > community through its structure and processes. > > The role of IETF Counsel is to provide advice to IETF leadership to support > their formal decision making role as set out in these processes, but neither > they nor I have any powers beyond that. I took your note to me as invoking > the escalation path that RFC 9680 provides information on and consulted with > counsel and the response is, as previously conveyed, that your concern should > be addressed through the standards process.
For the avoidance of doubt - by "note to me" I meant copying me in and specifically addressing me in your message to the WG list, not something offlist. Jay -- Jay Daley IETF Executive Director exec-direc...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
