Hi. I agree with Sam and Scott. Let me add one more piece to that picture: We have spent many years saying not only "I-Ds expire" but "I-Ds are not an archival series". While I've gradually come around to the advantages of the IETF maintaining an archive of old ones and making it accessible, I think there are many reasons for not promising that. From the IETF's point of view, perhaps the most important of those reasons is the seemingly-perennial argument that we have about whether the existence of non-standards-track RFCs is either misleading or provides an unnecessary avenue for abuse by those who want to imply IETF approval when none exists. We've seen the same games played with I-Ds, e.g., "post an I-D and then advertise 'under consideration in the IETF" or even "being standardized by the IETF". I think the IESG should have the authority (and responsibility) to remove I-Ds from the public archive, not just on the basis of court orders and the like, but in response to any strong evidence of abuse, without our having to try to enumerate all categories of abuses in advance. I think that such a decision should be announced so that it can be appealed if necessary, but that, to avoid both general annoyance/noise and DoS attacks, we not get trapped into considering taking down a document to be a consensus matter. It is not an archival series and we should not promise that it will be maintained as one. If Counsel advises that we keep copies of anything that is taken down so that, e.g., we can respond to court orders to produce or authenticate it (at least unless a court of final jurisdiction orders us to discard it), I'm find with that, but the draft statement doesn't address the disposition of documents that are removed from the web site at all. I also believe that the IESG should reestablish policies that permit WGs (or their leadership), ADs responsible for WG documents, or submitters of individual or other-stream documents to pre-expire them --i.e., have them moved from the I-D directory and "active" status in the tracker. When such documents were posted in error or are clearly at risk of becoming a distraction, the community is not well-served by insisting that they remain "active" until the six months runs out. To repeat, the I-D series was explicitly designed to not be archival. Let's not change that by an overly restrictive take-down policy. john p.s. FWIW, my understanding of the DCMA is consistent with Dave Crocker's and his note on the subject. Andrian, as I understand it, there is no such thing as a pre-emptive counternotice. If the IETF, faced with a proper DCMA complaint, decided to not take something down, the boilerplate might become part of a "his problem, not ours" defense, but, as Dave suggests, that is the sort of thing on which lawyers become wealthy. In practical terms, unless we decide we have a liking for lawsuits, we'd probably be much better off responding to a proper DCMA notice by taking the I-D out of public view and then letting anyone who believes that the draft should have stayed up sue the entity who created the notice. --On Tuesday, September 04, 2012 07:27 -0400 Scott O Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > in addition > since there is no admissions control on IDs I would think that > the IESG would want to reserve the option to remove an ID > that contained clear libel or inappropriate material (e.g., a > pornographic story published as an ID as part of a DoS attack > on the IETF) once the IESG had been given notice of such > material > > Scott > > On Sep 3, 2012, at 9:29 PM, Sam Hartman > <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I strongly urge the IESG to be significantly more liberal in >> the cases where an I-D will be removed from the archive. >> >> I can think of a number of cases where I'd hope that the IESg >> would be cooperative: