On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM, IETF Chair <chair(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote
The IESG is considering this IESG Statement. Comments from the community are
solicited.
On behalf of the IESG,
Russ
--- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT ---
SUBJECT: Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) are working documents of the IETF, its Areas,
and its Working Groups. In addition, other groups, including the IAB
and the IRTF Research Groups, distribute working documents as I-Ds.
I-Ds are stored in two places on the IETF web site. First, current
ones are stored in the I-D directory. Second, current and past ones
are stored in a public I-D archive.
I-Ds are readily available to a wide audience from the IETF I-D
directory. This availability facilitates informal review, comment,
and revision.
While entries in the I-D directory are subject to change or removal
at any time, I-Ds generally remain publicly archived to support easy
comparison with previous versions.
Entries in the I-D directory are removed as part of normal process
when it expires after six months, when it is replaced by a subsequent
I-D, or when it is replaced by the publication of an RFC. In all
of these situations, the I-D remains in the public I-D archive.
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.
This statement doesn't actually seem to cover the case for removal
from the I-D directory, only the public archive. If you would like it
to cover the case where a court order or other action causes a
document to be removed from the public I-D directory, it probably
needs an update. If that's covered in another document, pulling them
into a single document makes sense to me.
I support the idea that there be mechanisms for removal of IDs from
both that don't require a court order, but I don't think it should be
too simple. I'd suggest:
a) Stream owner approval for streams outside the IETF stream
(documents identified as irtf or IAB).
b) Relevant AD for WG documents
c) IESG for individual submissions, with any AD able to put the matter
to the IESG.
There is an existing method for b as it relates to the current
directory--a working group chair replacing an editor and then having
the new editor issue a new draft. The AD should be consulted and
approve, though, if it either needs to be done more quickly than that
or it needs to relate to the archive.
c) is the most onerous because of the risk that simpler mechanisms
might be used to shut out ideas. It might also be useful to clarify
that the appeal chain for this action follows the usual process.
Just my two cents,
Ted