Without commenting on Sam's specific examples, I think the policy
should include a "generally" or "normally" weasel word, so that
the IESG can make exceptions in unusual circumstances.
It really should be unusual though. A real case some years ago
involved a dispute between an ex-employee and ex-employer about
who had the right to update a non-WG draft. The IETF shouldn't be in the
business of deciding disputes of that kind, which could happen
any time.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 04/09/2012 02:29, Sam Hartman wrote:
I strongly urge the IESG to be significantly more liberal in the cases
where an I-D will be removed from the archive.
I can think of a number of cases where I'd hope that the IESg would be
cooperative:
1) the IETF recieves a DMCA take-down notice or other instrument
indicating that a third party believes an I-D infringes their copyright.
Forcing such third parties to take the IETF to court does not seem to
benefit the community.
2) An author realizes that an I-D accidentally contains proprietary
information, infringes someone else's copyright, failed to go through
external release processes for the author/editor's organization, etc.
Obviously factors like how long after the I-D is submitted might need to
be considered.
In conclusion, I believe there are a number of cases where the interests
of the community are better served by being able to ask for removal from
the archive. Being able to easily repair mistakes is likely to
facilitate more free discussion and more speedy updating of I-Ds.
Yes, I'm aware that organizations other than the IETF mirror the i-ds
and some of these organizations will be less sympathetic to these
concerns.