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

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 20:46:35 +0000

> Well, that just says this document is needed due to "growing concern in the community". Fine. I don't think it's needed (and I seem to be one of the only people that reads any of these documents), but most of what's in it is true.

This is IMO one of those issues where IETF community consensus needs to be developed and show us a path forward. My understanding of the process as it stands now (and Lars can correct me) is GenDispatch will either dispatch it to a particular area or WG or to do it in the Gen Area (or take no action I suppose).

Jason

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 15:11:13 -0700

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 1:46 PM Livingood, Jason <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> > Well, that just says this document is needed due to "growing concern in
> the community". Fine. I don't think it's needed (and I seem to be one of
> the only people that reads any of these documents), but most of what's in
> it is true.
>
> This is IMO one of those issues where IETF community consensus needs to be
> developed and show us a path forward. My understanding of the process as it
> stands now (and Lars can correct me) is GenDispatch will either dispatch it
> to a particular area or WG or to do it in the Gen Area (or take no action I
> suppose).
>

That sounds right to me. I think if people read the relevant documents,
including the existing BCPs linked by the draft, and the IETF LLC statement
I linked, consensus will readily emerge.

My personal opinion is that no change is necessary, and the IETF LLC
statement from last year is excellent and correct, but I don't I also don't
think any really bad outcome is possible if people actually do their
homework. :)

thanks,
Rob