On Aug 15, 2008, at 10:05 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, August 15, 2008 10:02 AM +1200 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx
> wrote:
On 2008-08-14 19:25, Simon Josefsson wrote:
...
If removals should be permitted, the reasons for accepting a
removal request should be well established. I can think of
at least two reasons that are valid:
* Exact duplicates
* Spam
Beyond this I'm less sure we can get away the liability
concern.
False positives for spam could be a issue, so I'm not even
sure the second one is OK.
Well, here's a quote from #644, which I had removed:
"is ipv6 the ultimate version of the internet protocol now?
is possible send segments of 256 bytes in the ipv6 protocol?
support microsoft corporation the ipv6 protocol in the
microsofts private networks?
the code of ipv6 is a"
It wasn't spam; it was just drivel. There were others of the
same nature,
# 555, #577, #578 and possibly others; I don't have full
# records. But I assure
you that since these removals were all manual, there were no
false positives. I don't think that's a real risk.
Brian,
I believe that the right way to handle these cases involves _not_
having IPR submissions go directly to the database but instead be
the subject of a nominal manual review (or, if you prefer "moderated
postings"). If something passes that review --whose only criterion
should be that it has the general form, structure, and content of an
IPR disclosure (which the above clearly does not), then it goes into
the database. If not, it goes into a quarantine area with senders
given, say, 30 days to protest that classification.
Those who appear to be mounting denial of service attacks on that
process could be dealt with just as we deal with those who mount
such attacks on IETF mailing lists.
Being a little proactive in that way prevents nonsense from getting
into the database in the first place and saves us discussions about
the appropriate boundaries for removing something already posted.
If that sort of quick review is too expensive, then I think we are
stuck with comments that some postings are nonsense because there is
a slippery slope that leads toward evaluating the content of such
postings; I think it unwise for the IETF to be anywhere near that
slope. If I correctly understand some of your recent postings, we
are fairly close to agreement on that subject, even if you might be
willing to wander a bit closer to the edge than I am.
I agree with John here. It seems to me that there is a big difference
in bouncing postings and removing them, especially if the bouncing is
for clearly articulated, neutral, reasons (not having "the general
form, structure, and content of an IPR disclosure"), which could be
rectified if the poster really was serious about making a disclosure.
We bounce stuff at the IETF (spam sent to mailing lists, even meeting
registrations) literally every day for the same reason.
Regards
Marshall
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf