I am not at all convinced that there should be any reason, aside from a court order, that would remove an ID from the ID archive. In addition to the potential advantages of being able to compare earlier versions, there is a real need to support - at some public location - what an earlier ID actually included, for IPR and other legal reasons. Removal of an ID from a public site - even by court order - will not remove all copies of the ID from other (private) locations (though a court order might make it illegal to keep any such "private" copies - helping to alleviate issues that might derive from them). If there remain nothing but private copies, it will be possible to produce modified versions (for example) claiming they are "true copies" of the original ones. I'm not a lawyer, but I would be more than a little bit leery of posting an ID if I were not going to be in a position to show what that ID actually said at some point in the future when I might be confronted with an alleged copy that says something different. Bad enough we have to live with our real transgressions, without the possibility of being obliged to live with those that almost anyone could make up on our behalf... -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:50 AM To: 'Ted Hardie'; 'IETF Chair' Cc: 'IETF' Subject: RE: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site 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