On 5 Sep 2012, at 06:20, Vinayak Hegde <vinayakh(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:50 PM, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance
with a duly authorized court order. If possible, a removed I-D will be
replaced with a tombstone file that describes the reason that the I-D
was removed from the public I-D archive.
I'll +1 the change (only for the IETF Stream) suggested by Alessandro
Vesely.
Suggested text:
An expired I-D will be removed from the public I-D archive when necessary.
Such action will be taken by request of an IESG member, a chair of the
working group associated with the I-D, or one of the document authors.
If possible, a removed I-D will be replaced with a tombstone file that
describes the reason that the I-D was removed from the public I-D archive.
+1
It might be prudent to add other details of the DMCA order as well. I
have seen that other websites do that.
This is a good FAQ on DMCA removal
http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/notice.cgi?NoticeID=627#QID130
-- Vinayak (IANAL)
IANAL either, but I can imagine valid non-DMCA reasons for the IESG wanting to
remove an expired I-D, or add a tombstone file / note in its place.
For example, I have seen examples where an IETFer (who'd been around the block
a few times, and so did know better) repeatedly has held up and cited a long
expired I-D claiming "Findings of the IETF show that ....", as part of his/her
argument in various contexts outside of the IETF.
Empowering the IESG to be able to act, in various such situations, and not just
in response to court orders or DCMA requests, is IMO a good thing.
I like Alessandro's suggestion that "An expired I-D will be removed from the
public I-D archive when necessary".
I am on the fence if some sort of "consensus for removal" among the ADs should
be expected or not, though - as Alessandro's text concerns *expired* I-Ds.
(It's trivial to render an *active* I-D *expired* by way of submitting a new
version...)
Thomas