Hi Ted, I think an I-D can be removed from the I-D directory by replacing it with another I-D (possibly with null content, or possibly with tombstone text) using existing process. Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ted > Hardie > Sent: 05 September 2012 16:05 > To: IETF Chair > Cc: IETF > Subject: Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF > Web Site > > 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