On Aug 13, 2008, at 7:10 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
However, if people were filing disclosures that would not be useful
(slanderous statements, duplicate-by-accident filings, stuff that
turns out to be false and which the submitter wants redacted), we
thought that having the discretionary ability to remove disclosures
was a Good Thing.
I have to admit that I found the "removed" state a bit mysterious.
The webtools(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org alias got a bug report: "this previously filed
IPR statement is now a 404". I investigated lightly and discovered
that it was in the "removed" state, and decided that this was an error
in the tool's handling of "removed".
Knowing that "removed" was really intended for spam makes the tool's
handling of "removed" correct (pretend it doesn't exist), and the IPR
statement being in the "removed" state incorrect.
(Another problem with "removed" is that there's no annotation as to
why it's removed, or when, or by whom. *sigh*)
Bill
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf