ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

2012-09-05 11:07:13
I am not at all convinced that there should be any reason, aside from a court 
order, that
would remove an ID from the ID archive.

In addition to the potential advantages of being able to compare earlier 
versions, there
is a real need to support - at some public location - what an earlier ID 
actually included,
for IPR and other legal reasons.

Removal of an ID from a public site - even by court order - will not remove all 
copies of
the ID from other (private) locations (though a court order might make it 
illegal to keep
any such "private" copies - helping to alleviate issues that might derive from 
them).  If
there remain nothing but private copies, it will be possible to produce 
modified versions
(for example) claiming they are "true copies" of the original ones.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would be more than a little bit leery of posting an ID 
if I were not
going to be in a position to show what that ID actually said at some point in 
the future
when I might be confronted with an alleged copy that says something different.

Bad enough we have to live with our real transgressions, without the 
possibility of being
obliged to live with those that almost anyone could make up on our behalf...

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:50 AM
To: 'Ted Hardie'; 'IETF Chair'
Cc: 'IETF'
Subject: RE: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF 
Web Site

Hi Ted,

I think an I-D can be removed from the I-D directory by replacing it with 
another I-D (possibly with null content, or possibly with tombstone text) using 
existing process.

Cheers,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf 
Of Ted Hardie
Sent: 05 September 2012 16:05
To: IETF Chair
Cc: IETF
Subject: Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from 
the
IETF
Web Site

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


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>