Hi Yoav, At 00:44 09-05-2012, Yoav Nir wrote:
What the IETF writes in its policy amounts to a plea to users to pretty please send only factual information. I don't know that it makes a difference as to who is liable if the information turns out to be non-factual.
Section 3 text mentions several paths for the issue, i.e. responsibility lies with the working group chair with escalation to area directors. Paragraph 2 and 3 discusses about that. The issue which predates this draft is mentioned in the message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg71484.html
Do you know any IETF participant who is dumb enough to send a public request for sanctions? :-) That can affect the individual's carrier path in the IETF and in the corporate world. Some IETF participants might even ask lawyers to take action. Watching "Behind enemy lines" (disambiguation required) might be instructive in this context.
At the end of the day, this draft is simply a matter of having an RFC for those who might find the information helpful. Sometimes all one can do is to say "pretty please".
I'll +1 this draft as it stands. Regards, -sm