On Mon, 20 Apr 2015, John C Klensin 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.
Actually, this might be the start of a real problem. The ietf.org
has a great page rank value. Getting your domain into a url into
a draft on the IETF site has value. In this case, I noticed two
URLs that we would never put in real drafts, things to personal
domains where real authors would use "example.com". That's a very
simple objective rule that can be enforced. If we don't, we might
end up attracting spammers in attempts to bring up their page
ranking on search engines.
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.
Yup, as long as the rules are purely technical or procedural and
not based on content.
Paul