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' button
existed. The only removals I recall, which may or may not be in the
numbers Simon quoted, were completely bogus and nonsensical disclosures
clearly filed by someone who was just fiddling around on the Web.
Some of the disclosures that are now removed were certainly not bogus.
For example, the patent license given in #833 was important input to a
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 the
community to having both #941 and #942 on file - they're duplicates.
Removing one out of two duplicates doesn't remove any patent-disclosure
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 reasons
that are valid:
* Exact duplicates
* Spam
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.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf