ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2012-09-10 13:41:34
On 9/9/12 8:43 PM, John Levine wrote:
Let's say I write to the IESG and say this:

  Due to a late night editing error, draft-foo-bar-42 which I
  submitted yesterday contains several paragraphs of company
  confidential information which you can easily see are irrelevant to
  the draft.  My boss wants it taken down pronto, even though he
  realizes that third parties may have made copies of it in the
  meantime.  I will probably lose my job if it stays up for more than a
  few days.  Thanks for your consideration.

Is this the response?

  You didn't make any legal threats, and now that we know the
  situation, we wouldn't believe any legal threats you might make in the
  future, so you better check out those burger flipping opportunities.

No, the response is that we refer you to our policy.  As an open
organization we do not remove information once posted, except under
extraordinary circumstances.

Exactly. This sort of thing is wh a policy is needed, although I note in
passing that the folks at this hypothetical might want to read up on the
Streisand Effect.


What was wrong with the original version which gave the IESG the
latitude to remove an I-D if they feel, for whatever reason, that it
would be a good idea to do so?

What original?  The draft policy states:

An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance
with a duly authorized court order.


If the IESG were so screwed up that
they started deleting I-Ds for bad reasons, no amount of process
verbiage would help.

Certainly, but let's not start from the wrong place to begin with.
Let's also set expectations that the IESG may be used to clean up after
other peoples' messes.  They have enough to do.

That is if anything an understatement. 

And again, this is best developed with counsel.

A very emphatic +1 to this.

                                Ned

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