ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2012-09-05 13:33:09
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:46 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

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.

At least for category (c), it might be reasonable to be more
flexible about take-down, or at least early expiration, requests
from authors than from third parties.

I am fine with that, though I had been assuming that replacing an I-D
in the public directory was fast enough that it would be the default.
The problem then turns into how to remove it from the archive
directory if the author also wants that.


That flexibility might
reasonably not apply once a WG (or RG or the IAB) has started
considering the document.

If the IESG wants to assume the burden of evaluating those
considerations on a case-by-case basis, it is fine with me, but
I continue to believe that IESG members have better things to do
with their time.  To say that a different way, we should avoid
loading more and more work onto the AD job description, even
with the assent of the incumbents, so that we can hope to get
candidates for the roles who do not have full-time support for
participation in the IETF (and who have no other substantive
responsibilities to their employers or sponsors during their
terms).

For third party requests to remove others' independent submissions, I
think there should be a pretty high bar.  "Open submission" is a key
part of "open standards", in my opinion, and if it becomes overly easy
to cause submissions to be removed, we run risks to our process that I
think are worse than the added load on the IESG.  If you were replying
only in regards to first-party requests, than, as I said, I'm fine
with the moral equivalent of early expiry.

The only reason I can see for making third party removal of public,
non-expired I-Ds be at the discretion of the IESG, rather than
requiring a court order, is that someone could attempt to publish
patently offensive material in an I-D as an attack.  Forcing us to pay
the legal fees for a court order would be a potential DoS, as someone
up-thread noted.  If it weren't for that, I would support court order
only.

regards,

Ted


   john



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