Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Simon Josefsson skrev: >> Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >>> >>> I wasn't even aware, during my tenure as chair, that the 'remove' button >>> existed. The only removals I recall, which may or may not be in the >>> numbers Simon quoted, were completely bogus and nonsensical disclosures >>> clearly filed by someone who was just fiddling around on the Web. >>> >> >> Some of the disclosures that are now removed were certainly not bogus. >> For example, the patent license given in #833 was important input to a >> lengthy discussion relatively recently. > definitely agree on that one "for the record". > > OTOH, to give a counterexample, I don't think there's any value to the > community to having both #941 and #942 on file - they're duplicates.
Removing one out of two duplicates doesn't remove any patent-disclosure related information, so I don't think it is a good counter-example. If removals should be permitted, the reasons for accepting a removal request should be well established. I can think of at least two reasons that are valid: * Exact duplicates * Spam Beyond this I'm less sure we can get away the liability concern. False positives for spam could be a issue, so I'm not even sure the second one is OK. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
