On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM, IETF Chair <chair@xxxxxxxx> wrote > The IESG is considering this IESG Statement. Comments from the community are solicited. > > On behalf of the IESG, > Russ > > --- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT --- > > SUBJECT: Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site > > Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) are working documents of the IETF, its Areas, > and its Working Groups. In addition, other groups, including the IAB > and the IRTF Research Groups, distribute working documents as I-Ds. > I-Ds are stored in two places on the IETF web site. First, current > ones are stored in the I-D directory. Second, current and past ones > are stored in a public I-D archive. > > I-Ds are readily available to a wide audience from the IETF I-D > directory. This availability facilitates informal review, comment, > and revision. > > While entries in the I-D directory are subject to change or removal > at any time, I-Ds generally remain publicly archived to support easy > comparison with previous versions. > > Entries in the I-D directory are removed as part of normal process > when it expires after six months, when it is replaced by a subsequent > I-D, or when it is replaced by the publication of an RFC. In all > of these situations, the I-D remains in the public I-D archive. > > An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance > with a duly authorized court order. If possible, a removed I-D will be > replaced with a tombstone file that describes the reason that the I-D > was removed from the public I-D archive. > This statement doesn't actually seem to cover the case for removal from the I-D directory, only the public archive. If you would like it to cover the case where a court order or other action causes a document to be removed from the public I-D directory, it probably needs an update. If that's covered in another document, pulling them into a single document makes sense to me. I support the idea that there be mechanisms for removal of IDs from both that don't require a court order, but I don't think it should be too simple. I'd suggest: a) Stream owner approval for streams outside the IETF stream (documents identified as irtf or IAB). b) Relevant AD for WG documents c) IESG for individual submissions, with any AD able to put the matter to the IESG. There is an existing method for b as it relates to the current directory--a working group chair replacing an editor and then having the new editor issue a new draft. The AD should be consulted and approve, though, if it either needs to be done more quickly than that or it needs to relate to the archive. c) is the most onerous because of the risk that simpler mechanisms might be used to shut out ideas. It might also be useful to clarify that the appeal chain for this action follows the usual process. Just my two cents, Ted