On Aug 13, 2008, at 7:10 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
However, if people were filing disclosures that would not be useful (slanderous statements, duplicate-by-accident filings, stuff that turns out to be false and which the submitter wants redacted), we thought that having the discretionary ability to remove disclosures was a Good Thing.
I have to admit that I found the "removed" state a bit mysterious. The [EMAIL PROTECTED] alias got a bug report: "this previously filed IPR statement is now a 404". I investigated lightly and discovered that it was in the "removed" state, and decided that this was an error in the tool's handling of "removed".
Knowing that "removed" was really intended for spam makes the tool's handling of "removed" correct (pretend it doesn't exist), and the IPR statement being in the "removed" state incorrect.
(Another problem with "removed" is that there's no annotation as to why it's removed, or when, or by whom. *sigh*)
Bill _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
