On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:46 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 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. > > At least for category (c), it might be reasonable to be more > flexible about take-down, or at least early expiration, requests > from authors than from third parties. I am fine with that, though I had been assuming that replacing an I-D in the public directory was fast enough that it would be the default. The problem then turns into how to remove it from the archive directory if the author also wants that. > That flexibility might > reasonably not apply once a WG (or RG or the IAB) has started > considering the document. > > If the IESG wants to assume the burden of evaluating those > considerations on a case-by-case basis, it is fine with me, but > I continue to believe that IESG members have better things to do > with their time. To say that a different way, we should avoid > loading more and more work onto the AD job description, even > with the assent of the incumbents, so that we can hope to get > candidates for the roles who do not have full-time support for > participation in the IETF (and who have no other substantive > responsibilities to their employers or sponsors during their > terms). > For third party requests to remove others' independent submissions, I think there should be a pretty high bar. "Open submission" is a key part of "open standards", in my opinion, and if it becomes overly easy to cause submissions to be removed, we run risks to our process that I think are worse than the added load on the IESG. If you were replying only in regards to first-party requests, than, as I said, I'm fine with the moral equivalent of early expiry. The only reason I can see for making third party removal of public, non-expired I-Ds be at the discretion of the IESG, rather than requiring a court order, is that someone could attempt to publish patently offensive material in an I-D as an attack. Forcing us to pay the legal fees for a court order would be a potential DoS, as someone up-thread noted. If it weren't for that, I would support court order only. regards, Ted > john > >