On 4/20/15 10:08 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Monday, April 20, 2015 08:53 -0800 Melinda Shore > <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 4/20/15 8:29 AM, James Woodyatt wrote: >>> The Internet Draft queue is the slush pile of the IETF >>> publication process. It's important that slush arrive in the >>> queue without filters of any kind, automated or not. I >>> believe reading slush entails suspending prejudice to the >>> extent possible and assuming that any draft entering the >>> queue was submitted by earnest authors in all due seriousness. >> >> Hear, hear. > > I agree completely and note that I did not suggest any filtering > based on content, only on naming and, using the concepts of our > PR mechanisms, possibly on persistent disrupters. For exactly > the "slush pile" reasoning, I think the standard of disruption > required to start blocking I-D postings should be extremely > high. > > However, it was pointed out to me in an offlist note that we > also should be able to take already-posted drafts down if they > are libelous, indecent, infringe copyrights or disclose trade > secrets, or represent harassing behavior. In a few cases, we > might even be legally required to do so. Our procedures for > doing that have never been clear (at least to me). Maybe some > small effort there is justified. If procedures designed for > other purposes happened to eliminate drafts that would require > take-down for those types of reasons before they were posted, I > don't think anyone should react negatively to that. https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/removal-of-an-internet-draft.html > john > > > > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature