On Aug 14, 2008, at 3:25 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> writes:
Simon Josefsson skrev:
Brian E Carpenter <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> writes:
I wasn't even aware, during my tenure as chair, that the 'remove'
existed. The only removals I recall, which may or may not be in the
numbers Simon quoted, were completely bogus and nonsensical
clearly filed by someone who was just fiddling around on the Web.
Some of the disclosures that are now removed were certainly not
For example, the patent license given in #833 was important input
lengthy discussion relatively recently.
definitely agree on that one "for the record".
OTOH, to give a counterexample, I don't think there's any value to
community to having both #941 and #942 on file - they're duplicates.
Removing one out of two duplicates doesn't remove any patent-
related information, so I don't think it is a good counter-example.
If removals should be permitted, the reasons for accepting a removal
request should be well established. I can think of at least two
that are valid:
* Exact duplicates
I would divide this a little differently
- there are removals that can be done automatically. Some of these
- exact duplicates
- spam (or any other postings) _that don't mention patent rights
- postings with offensive words
These do not bother me. (There should, however, be a list of these
reasons in a BCP IMO.)
- then there are removals that require judgement, which make me very
Suppose that, as a result of a border dispute, someone from a
posts a claim that all of Large Company X's IPR is now made available
under the terms of GPL v3.
This might be done as part of a wider campaign of cyber warfare.
Removing this is making a judgement on the validity of IPR claims,
which we claim we do not do. It would be
much better to reject such messages before they are ever posted.
One solution would be to require a TDMA like confirmation of the
existence of posters (do they
exist, and are they with the company they claim to be speaking for)
_before_ the posting is accepted.
So, I would suggest
- a published list of reasons for automatic rejection of a disclosure
- a requirement that a company confirm the validity of a disclosure
before it is posted publicly.
Beyond this I'm less sure we can get away the liability concern.
False positives for spam could be a issue, so I'm not even sure the
second one is OK.
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list