On 4/20/15 10:08 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, April 20, 2015 08:53 -0800 Melinda Shore
<melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 4/20/15 8:29 AM, James Woodyatt wrote:
The Internet Draft queue is the slush pile of the IETF
publication process. It's important that slush arrive in the
queue without filters of any kind, automated or not. I
believe reading slush entails suspending prejudice to the
extent possible and assuming that any draft entering the
queue was submitted by earnest authors in all due seriousness.
Hear, hear.
I agree completely and note that I did not suggest any filtering
based on content, only on naming and, using the concepts of our
PR mechanisms, possibly on persistent disrupters. For exactly
the "slush pile" reasoning, I think the standard of disruption
required to start blocking I-D postings should be extremely
high.
However, it was pointed out to me in an offlist note that we
also should be able to take already-posted drafts down if they
are libelous, indecent, infringe copyrights or disclose trade
secrets, or represent harassing behavior. In a few cases, we
might even be legally required to do so. Our procedures for
doing that have never been clear (at least to me). Maybe some
small effort there is justified. If procedures designed for
other purposes happened to eliminate drafts that would require
take-down for those types of reasons before they were posted, I
don't think anyone should react negatively to that.
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/removal-of-an-internet-draft.html
john
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature