John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> writes:
Well, here's a quote from #644, which I had removed:
"is ipv6 the ultimate version of the internet protocol now?
is possible send segments of 256 bytes in the ipv6 protocol?
support microsoft corporation the ipv6 protocol in the
microsofts private networks?
the code of ipv6 is a"
It wasn't spam; it was just drivel. There were others of the
same nature,
# 555, #577, #578 and possibly others; I don't have full
# records. But I assure
you that since these removals were all manual, there were no
false positives. I don't think that's a real risk.
Brian,
I believe that the right way to handle these cases involves _not_
having IPR submissions go directly to the database but instead be the
subject of a nominal manual review (or, if you prefer "moderated
postings"). If something passes that review --whose only criterion
should be that it has the general form, structure, and content of an
IPR disclosure (which the above clearly does not), then it goes into
the database. If not, it goes into a quarantine area with senders
given, say, 30 days to protest that classification.
Those who appear to be mounting denial of service attacks on that
process could be dealt with just as we deal with those who mount such
attacks on IETF mailing lists.
I agree with John here: our process to deal with drivel on IETF mailing
lists are appropriate to handle drivel in the IETF patent disclosure
list as well.
I'd like to suggest that the IETF patent disclosure mechanism be changed
to postings to a mailing list. All patent disclosures can be sent to
it, archived as any other IETF work. The postings would then also be
subject to the dispute handling process that the IETF already have put
significant amount of work into. It would also be subject to the
anti-spam mechanism already in place.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf