On 9/21/2012 1:45 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG has updated the draft IESG Statement based on the many comments that have been received. It is clear that the community wants the IESG to be able to remove an Internet-Draft from the Public I-D Archive without a court order to do so. That said, the IESG firmly believes that the collection of I-Ds provide important historical records for the open and transparent operation of the IETF. Therefore, removal of a I-D from the Public I-D Archive should teated as a significant event.
Comments from the community are solicited on the revised draft IESG statement.
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. I-Ds provide
important historical records for the open and transparent operation of
the IETF. Other individuals and groups, including the IAB and IRTF
Research Groups, have chosen to distribute working documents as I-Ds.
The IAB and IRTF are not part of the IETF? The Independent stream also
uses I-Ds. Isn't it part of the IETF?
I-Ds are stored in two places on the IETF web site. First, current I-Ds
are stored in the I-D Repository. Second, current and past I-Ds are
stored in a Public I-D Archive.
While entries in the I-D Repository are subject to change or removal
at any time,
They are? Is this new? I thought the only established removal policy
was the regular 6-month timeout.
I-Ds generally remain in the Public I-D Archive to support
easy comparison with previous versions. This availability facilitates
review, comment, and revision.
>
An entry in the I-D Repository is 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.
The text up to this point mostly looks like a general set of policy
assertions about I-Ds. Those need to exist separately as a formal
policy statement about the series and its archive(s).
That would leave the current statement to focus on its specific topic.
An I-D will only be removed from the Public I-D Archive with consensus
of the IESG. There are two situations when the IESG will take this
action. First, to comply with a duly authorized court order. Second,
to resolve some form of abuse.
This second basis looks sufficiently broad and vague to invite its own
abuse and certainly inconsistent application. Did IETF counsel express
comfort with this language?
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.
When an I-D is removed from the Public I-D Archive, a copy will be kept
in a location accessible only by the IETF Leadership and the IETF
Secretariat. This private location may be searched by the IETF
Leadership or the IETF Secretariat when responding to appeals,
responding to subpoenas, or otherwise handling to legal matters.
Interesting. An archive archive.
IETF "leadership" isn't a formal term. Who does it include/exclude? WG
Chairs? Why? Why not?
Over time, given the number of people who hold various IETF leadership
positions, this effectively gives access to a very large fraction of the
IETF community.
If you are aware of abuse that warrants removal of an I-D from the
Public I-D Archive, please write to the iesg@xxxxxxxx and explain the
situation. At its discretion, the IESG may consult counsel or the IETF
community before taking any action on such requests.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net