Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 5 Sep 2012, at 10:51, SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.

I suspect that catching such things and capturing them in our procedures are the reason why the IETF has legal counsel.

> 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.

On that, I agree fully.

> 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. :-)

That's what has happened so far. It would be preferable if such an URL either wasn't on an IETF-sanctioned server, though. 

If archives of expired I-Ds are to exist on an IETF server, I-Ds should be clearly labeled as "These are *not* findings of the IETF, in fact, the IETF has abandoned this effort, for whatever reason, whoever pointed you here isn't keeping up" ;)

> 
>> 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.

Yup.

Thomas

> Regards,
> -sm 



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]