--On Friday, August 15, 2008 10:02 AM +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2008-08-14 19:25, Simon Josefsson wrote:
...
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.
Well, here's a quote from #644, which I had removed:
"is ipv6 the ultimate version of the internet protocol now?
is possible send segments of 256 bytes in the ipv6 protocol?
support microsoft corporation the ipv6 protocol in the
microsofts private networks?
the code of ipv6 is a"
It wasn't spam; it was just drivel. There were others of the
same nature,
# 555, #577, #578 and possibly others; I don't have full
# records. But I assure
you that since these removals were all manual, there were no
false positives. I don't think that's a real risk.
Brian,
I believe that the right way to handle these cases involves
_not_ having IPR submissions go directly to the database but
instead be the subject of a nominal manual review (or, if you
prefer "moderated postings"). If something passes that review
--whose only criterion should be that it has the general form,
structure, and content of an IPR disclosure (which the above
clearly does not), then it goes into the database. If not, it
goes into a quarantine area with senders given, say, 30 days to
protest that classification.
Those who appear to be mounting denial of service attacks on
that process could be dealt with just as we deal with those who
mount such attacks on IETF mailing lists.
Being a little proactive in that way prevents nonsense from
getting into the database in the first place and saves us
discussions about the appropriate boundaries for removing
something already posted. If that sort of quick review is too
expensive, then I think we are stuck with comments that some
postings are nonsense because there is a slippery slope that
leads toward evaluating the content of such postings; I think it
unwise for the IETF to be anywhere near that slope. If I
correctly understand some of your recent postings, we are fairly
close to agreement on that subject, even if you might be willing
to wander a bit closer to the edge than I am.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf