John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes: >> 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. I agree with John here: our process to deal with drivel on IETF mailing lists are appropriate to handle drivel in the IETF patent disclosure list as well. I'd like to suggest that the IETF patent disclosure mechanism be changed to postings to a mailing list. All patent disclosures can be sent to it, archived as any other IETF work. The postings would then also be subject to the dispute handling process that the IETF already have put significant amount of work into. It would also be subject to the anti-spam mechanism already in place. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf