>NEW: > >> An I-D MAY be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance >> with a competent legal demand. 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 leaves sufficient flexibility for the IESG to decide when a legal >demand requires the removal and when it's bogus, but otherwise leaves >the bar high. I would suggest that Jorge review the above text for >appropriateness. Let's say I write to the IESG and say this: Due to a late night editing error, draft-foo-bar-42 which I submitted yesterday contains several paragraphs of company confidential information which you can easily see are irrelevant to the draft. My boss wants it taken down pronto, even though he realizes that third parties may have made copies of it in the meantime. I will probably lose my job if it stays up for more than a few days. Thanks for your consideration. Is this the response? You didn't make any legal threats, and now that we know the situation, we wouldn't believe any legal threats you might make in the future, so you better check out those burger flipping opportunities. What was wrong with the original version which gave the IESG the latitude to remove an I-D if they feel, for whatever reason, that it would be a good idea to do so? If the IESG were so screwed up that they started deleting I-Ds for bad reasons, no amount of process verbiage would help. R's, John