doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 372 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc9680.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc9680.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8d5f0b8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc9680.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,372 @@
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                   J. Halpern, Ed.
+Request for Comments: 9680                                      Ericsson
+Category: Informational                                         J. Daley
+ISSN: 2070-1721                                  IETF Administration LLC
+                                                            October 2024
+
+
+               Antitrust Guidelines for IETF Participants
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document provides education and guidance for IETF participants
+   on compliance with antitrust laws and how to reduce antitrust risks
+   in connection with IETF activities.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
+   published for informational purposes.
+
+   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
+   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
+   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
+   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
+   approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet
+   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
+
+   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9680.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+   document authors.  All rights reserved.
+
+   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
+   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
+   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
+   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
+   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
+   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
+   include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
+   Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
+   in the Revised BSD License.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1.  Introduction
+   2.  Background
+     2.1.  A Note About Terminology
+     2.2.  Purpose of Antitrust or Competition Law
+     2.3.  Overlapping Areas of Concern
+   3.  Existing IETF Antitrust Compliance Strategy
+   4.  Additional Recommendations
+     4.1.  Topics to Avoid
+     4.2.  Obtaining Independent Legal Advice
+     4.3.  Escalating Antitrust-Related Concerns
+   5.  IANA Considerations
+   6.  Security Considerations
+   7.  References
+     7.1.  Normative References
+     7.2.  Informative References
+   Authors' Addresses
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   Standards development frequently requires collaboration between
+   competitors.  Cooperation among competitors can spark concerns about
+   antitrust law or competition law violations.  This document is
+   intended to educate IETF participants about how to reduce antitrust
+   risks in connection with IETF activities.  Nothing in this document
+   changes existing IETF policies.
+
+2.  Background
+
+2.1.  A Note About Terminology
+
+   "Antitrust law" and "competition law" are used synonymously in this
+   document.  "Antitrust" is the word that is used in the US and in
+   several other jurisdictions; "competition law" is the terminology
+   used in Europe and in many other jurisdictions.  There can be some
+   nuanced differences between how different jurisdictions address this
+   general area of law, and sometimes people use the terminology
+   differently to highlight these nuances, but here they are being used
+   as synonyms.
+
+2.2.  Purpose of Antitrust or Competition Law
+
+   The U.S. Department of Justice states that "the goal of the antitrust
+   laws is to protect economic freedom and opportunity by promoting free
+   and fair competition in the marketplace.  Competition in a free
+   market benefits consumers through lower prices, better quality and
+   greater choice.  Competition provides businesses the opportunity to
+   compete on price and quality, in an open market and on a level
+   playing field, unhampered by anticompetitive restraints" [DOJ].
+   Similarly, the European Commission states that the purpose of its
+   competition law rules is "to make EU markets work better, by ensuring
+   that all companies compete equally and fairly on their merits" which
+   "benefits consumers, businesses and the European economy as a whole"
+   [EC].  Fundamentally, antitrust or competition laws are designed to
+   facilitate open, fair, robust competition, ultimately to benefit
+   consumers.
+
+2.3.  Overlapping Areas of Concern
+
+   There are two overlapping areas of concern the IETF has in connection
+   with antitrust compliance:
+
+   *  Most acutely, the IETF cannot have anyone who is officially
+      representing the IETF, in any capacity, engage in anticompetitive
+      behavior and create liability for the IETF.
+
+   *  Additionally, the IETF cannot be a forum where participants engage
+      in anticompetitive behavior, even if direct liability for that
+      behavior falls on those participants and not the IETF, to avoid
+      reputational harm to the IETF.
+
+3.  Existing IETF Antitrust Compliance Strategy
+
+   Compliance with the BCPs and other relevant policies that document
+   the established rules and norms of the IETF facilitates compliance
+   with antitrust law, as the IETF structure and processes are designed
+   to mitigate antitrust risks.  As a reminder, participants are
+   required to comply with the following policies:
+
+   *  The Internet Standards Process as described in BCP 9 [BCP9], which
+      is designed to "provide a fair, open, and objective basis for
+      developing, evaluating, and adopting Internet Standards" (RFC
+      2026) and provides robust procedural rules, including an appeals
+      process.
+
+   *  The Working Group Guidelines and Procedures described in BCP 25
+      [BCP25], which emphasize requirements for "open and fair
+      participation and for thorough consideration of technical
+      alternatives" (RFC 2418) and describe the IETF's consensus-based
+      decision-making processes.
+
+   *  The IETF framework that participants engage in their individual
+      capacity, not as company representatives (see [BCP9] and [LLC]),
+      and "use their best engineering judgment to find the best solution
+      for the whole Internet, not just the best solution for any
+      particular network, technology, vendor, or user," as described in
+      RFC 7154 [BCP54].
+
+   *  The IETF's intellectual property rights policies as set forth in
+      BCP 78 [BCP78] and BCP 79 [BCP79].  These policies are carefully
+      designed to "benefit the Internet community and the public at
+      large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others" (RFC
+      8179).
+
+   *  The established conflict of interest policies, such as the IESG
+      Conflict of Interest Policy
+      (https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/iesg-coi-policy/), the IAB
+      Conflict of Interest Policy (https://www.iab.org/about/conflict-
+      of-interest-policy/), or the IETF LLC Conflict of Interest Policy
+      (https://www.ietf.org/administration/policies-procedures/conflict-
+      interest/), if and when applicable.
+
+4.  Additional Recommendations
+
+   The most important recommendation is for IETF participants to
+   rigorously follow all applicable IETF policies as set out in
+   Section 3.
+
+   This section provides more information about:
+
+   *  certain topics that are generally inappropriate for discussion in
+      a standards-setting environment,
+
+   *  the importance of participants obtaining independent legal advice,
+      as appropriate, and
+
+   *  paths to escalate antitrust-related concerns.
+
+4.1.  Topics to Avoid
+
+   While IETF participants are expected to participate as individuals,
+   their actions could still be construed as representing their
+   employer, whatever their role.  Therefore, participants should be
+   aware that some topics are generally inappropriate for discussion in
+   a standards-setting environment where representatives from
+   competitors to their employer are likely to be present.  These topics
+   include the following:
+
+   *  discussion about product pricing or profit margins among potential
+      competitors,
+
+   *  the details of business relationships between specific vendors and
+      customers,
+
+   *  details about the supply chains of specific companies,
+
+   *  discussions about market opportunities for specific companies, and
+
+   *  employee compensation or benefits among potentially competitive
+      employers.
+
+   While not all discussions of these topics would necessarily be
+   antitrust violations, and recognizing that analysis of antitrust
+   considerations will be different for differently positioned
+   participants, prudence suggests that avoiding these specific topics
+   in the context of the collaborative IETF process best mitigates
+   antitrust risks for the IETF and its participants.
+
+   Note that antitrust law reaches beyond these topics, however.  For
+   example, any behavior that amounts to an agreement to restrain
+   marketplace competition, or that facilitates monopolization of
+   particular markets, raises potential antitrust risks.  Participants
+   are responsible for ensuring that their conduct does not violate any
+   antitrust laws or regulations.
+
+4.2.  Obtaining Independent Legal Advice
+
+   All IETF participants are expected to behave lawfully when engaged in
+   IETF activities, including by following applicable antitrust law.
+   The IETF does not provide legal advice to participants, and instead
+   recommends that participants obtain independent legal advice as
+   needed.
+
+4.3.  Escalating Antitrust-Related Concerns
+
+   Participants can report potential antitrust issues in the context of
+   IETF activities by contacting IETF legal counsel (legal@ietf.org) or
+   via the IETF LLC whistleblower service [Whistleblower].  Note that
+   reports will only be assessed for their impact upon the IETF;
+   participants directly impacted by an antitrust issue are responsible
+   for obtaining their own legal advice.
+
+5.  IANA Considerations
+
+   This document has no IANA actions.
+
+6.  Security Considerations
+
+   This document introduces no known security aspects to the IETF or
+   IETF participants.
+
+7.  References
+
+7.1.  Normative References
+
+   [BCP9]     Best Current Practice 9,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp9>.
+              At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
+
+              Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
+              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.
+
+              Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
+              and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
+              Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, DOI 10.17487/RFC5657,
+              September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5657>.
+
+              Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
+              Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC6410, October 2011,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6410>.
+
+              Resnick, P., "Retirement of the "Internet Official
+              Protocol Standards" Summary Document", BCP 9, RFC 7100,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC7100, December 2013,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7100>.
+
+              Kolkman, O., Bradner, S., and S. Turner, "Characterization
+              of Proposed Standards", BCP 9, RFC 7127,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC7127, January 2014,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7127>.
+
+              Dawkins, S., "Increasing the Number of Area Directors in
+              an IETF Area", BCP 9, RFC 7475, DOI 10.17487/RFC7475,
+              March 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7475>.
+
+              Halpern, J., Ed. and E. Rescorla, Ed., "IETF Stream
+              Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus", BCP 9, RFC 8789,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC8789, June 2020,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8789>.
+
+              Rosen, B., "Responsibility Change for the RFC Series",
+              BCP 9, RFC 9282, DOI 10.17487/RFC9282, June 2022,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9282>.
+
+   [BCP25]    Best Current Practice 25,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp25>.
+              At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
+
+              Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
+              Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, DOI 10.17487/RFC2418,
+              September 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418>.
+
+              Wasserman, M., "Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the
+              Management of IETF Mailing Lists", BCP 25, RFC 3934,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC3934, October 2004,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3934>.
+
+              Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment
+              Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, DOI 10.17487/RFC7776, March
+              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7776>.
+
+              Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "Update to the IETF Anti-
+              Harassment Procedures for the Replacement of the IETF
+              Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) with the IETF
+              Administration LLC", BCP 25, RFC 8716,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC8716, February 2020,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8716>.
+
+   [BCP54]    Best Current Practice 54,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp54>.
+              At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
+
+              Moonesamy, S., Ed., "IETF Guidelines for Conduct", BCP 54,
+              RFC 7154, DOI 10.17487/RFC7154, March 2014,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7154>.
+
+   [BCP78]    Best Current Practice 78,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78>.
+              At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
+
+              Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
+              Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC5378, November 2008,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5378>.
+
+   [BCP79]    Best Current Practice 79,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79>.
+              At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
+
+              Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Intellectual Property
+              Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 8179,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC8179, May 2017,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8179>.
+
+7.2.  Informative References
+
+   [DOJ]      U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, "Mission",
+              <https://www.justice.gov/atr/mission>.
+
+   [EC]       European Commission, "Competition",
+              <https://commission.europa.eu/about-european-commission/
+              departments-and-executive-agencies/competition_en>.
+
+   [LLC]      IETF Administration LLC, "IETF Administration LLC
+              Statement on Competition Law Issues", 28 July 2020,
+              <https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-llc-statement-competition-
+              law-issues/>.
+
+   [Whistleblower]
+              IETF Administration LLC, "IETF LLC Whistleblower Policy",
+              <https://www.ietf.org/administration/policies-procedures/
+              whistleblower/>.
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+   Joel M. Halpern (editor)
+   Ericsson
+   P.O. Box 6049
+   Leesburg, VA 20178
+   United States of America
+   Email: joel.halpern@ericsson.com
+
+
+   Jay Daley
+   IETF Administration LLC
+   1000 N. West Street, Suite 1200
+   Wilmington, DE 19801
+   United States of America
+   Email: jay@staff.ietf.org