At 03:20 05-09-2012, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
It might be prudent to add other details of the DMCA order as well. I
have seen that other websites do that.
The IETF can provide the reason for a removal, e.g. a DMCA order, in
the tombstone. The "if possible" was left in as there could be a gag
order preventing the IETF from disclosing the facts about a removal.
Creating a perpetual I-D archive for the sake of rfcdiff is not a
good idea as it goes against the notion of letting an I-D expire gracefully.
At 07:32 05-09-2012, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:
IANAL either, but I can imagine valid non-DMCA reasons for the IESG
wanting to remove an expired I-D, or add a tombstone file / note in its place.
Yes. There has been a request to remove an I-D.
For example, I have seen examples where an IETFer (who'd been around
the block a few times, and so did know better) repeatedly has held
up and cited a long expired I-D claiming "Findings of the IETF show
that ....", as part of his/her argument in various contexts outside
of the IETF.
The IETFer will now provide a long-lived URL for the expired I-D. :-)
I am on the fence if some sort of "consensus for removal" among the
ADs should be expected or not, though - as Alessandro's text
concerns *expired* I-Ds. (It's trivial to render an *active* I-D
*expired* by way of submitting a new version...)
Yes. The author has the ability to correct a mistake. The new
functionality makes matters more difficult for authors. It can be
argued that the I-D will remain available on the Internet. There is
nothing the IETF can do about that. The IETF can make the matter
easier for the author by not distributing the I-D automatically after
six months.
Regards,
-sm