Marshall Eubanks <tme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I would divide this a little differently > > - there are removals that can be done automatically. Some of these > would be > - exact duplicates > - spam (or any other postings) _that don't mention patent rights or > IPR_ > - postings with offensive words > > These do not bother me. (There should, however, be a list of these > reasons in a BCP IMO.) I'd move the last category in under the spam: just because a patent license contains some unrelated word shouldn't mean it must be removed. If a disclosure regarding some patent contains offensive words, I think readers would prefer to deal with it. > - then there are removals that require judgement, which make me very > nervous. Indeed. > Suppose that, as a result of a border dispute, someone from a > neighboring country > posts a claim that all of Large Company X's IPR is now made available > under the terms of GPL v3. > This might be done as part of a wider campaign of cyber warfare. > > Removing this is making a judgement on the validity of IPR claims, > which we claim we do not do. It would be > much better to reject such messages before they are ever posted. Rejecting disclosures appears to be a judgement call too. > One solution would be to require a TDMA like confirmation of the > existence of posters (do they > exist, and are they with the company they claim to be speaking for) > _before_ the posting is accepted. > > So, I would suggest > > - a published list of reasons for automatic rejection of a disclosure +1. > - a requirement that a company confirm the validity of a disclosure > before it is posted publicly. How? Note also that there are third-party disclosures, which by their nature aren't authorized by the patent-holding organization. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf