>Also it might be useful for the submitter to sign (rather tick a
>tickbox/radio button) an indemnification clause for the IETF before
>submitting an I-D.
Even a totally meritless DMCA challenge could cost upwards of $100,000
in legal fees to challenge and go through court hearings. Will that
be
On Tue 04/Sep/2012 19:57:36 +0200 Russ Housley wrote:
>
> If an I-D is posted with secret text, then the secret is disclosed.
> I-D are copied to many shadow repositories all over the world. So,
> removing the I-D from ietf.org will not remove the secret text from
> the Internet.
I figure the od
At 17:00 03-09-2012, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering this IESG Statement. Comments from the
community are solicited.
[snip]
An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance
with a duly authorized court order. If possible, a removed I-D will be
replaced with a
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:50 PM, SM wrote:
>> An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance
>> with a duly authorized court order. If possible, a removed I-D will be
>> replaced with a tombstone file that describes the reason that the I-D
>> was removed from the public I-D
Based on IETF LC comments, I'm returning this draft to the WG. Stay
tuned for another IETF LC in a couple of weeks.
spt
On 8/22/12 11:05 AM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Public-Key Infrastructure
(X.509) WG (pkix) to consider the following document:
- 'Updates to
On 5 Sep 2012, at 06:20, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:50 PM, SM wrote:
>>> An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance
>>> with a duly authorized court order. If possible, a removed I-D will be
>>> replaced with a tombstone file that describes the re
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM, IETF Chair wrote
> The IESG is considering this IESG Statement. Comments from the community are
> solicited.
>
> On behalf of the IESG,
> Russ
>
> --- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT ---
>
> SUBJECT: Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
>
> Internet-Drafts (I-
At 03:20 05-09-2012, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
It might be prudent to add other details of the DMCA order as well. I
have seen that other websites do that.
The IETF can provide the reason for a removal, e.g. a DMCA order, in
the tombstone. The "if possible" was left in as there could be a gag
ord
On 5 Sep 2012, at 10:51, SM wrote:
> At 03:20 05-09-2012, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
>> It might be prudent to add other details of the DMCA order as well. I
>> have seen that other websites do that.
>
> The IETF can provide the reason for a removal, e.g. a DMCA order, in the
> tombstone. The "if
Hi Ted,
I think an I-D can be removed from the I-D directory by replacing it with
another I-D (possibly with null content, or possibly with tombstone text) using
existing process.
Cheers,
Adrian
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf O
On 05/09/2012 15:51, SM wrote:
...
>
> Yes. There has been a request to remove an I-D.
>
That's an interesting but not very informative statement.
In the only case I am personally aware of, in 2006/7, there
was a dispute (outside the IETF), with lawyer's letters flying
around. Eventually, in a
I am not at all convinced that there should be any reason, aside from a court
order, that
would remove an ID from the ID archive.
In addition to the potential advantages of being able to compare earlier
versions, there
is a real need to support - at some public location - what an earlier ID
act
+1
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E
Carpenter
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 12:04 PM
To: SM
Cc: IETF
Subject: Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF
Web Site
On 05/09/2012 15:51, SM w
--On Wednesday, September 05, 2012 08:05 -0700 Ted Hardie
wrote:
> I support the idea that there be mechanisms for removal of IDs
> from both that don't require a court order, but I don't think
> it should be too simple. I'd suggest:
>
> a) Stream owner approval for streams outside the IETF s
I'd be supportive of allowing the IESG to make a decision to remove I-Ds based
on court orders, abuse, and other well-justified reasons.
Such events would be rare, and we should let the IESG do its job of making
decisions based on available information. The statement need not and should not
ha
On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:06 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> I'd be supportive of allowing the IESG to make a decision to remove I-Ds
> based on court orders, abuse, and other well-justified reasons.
>
> Such events would be rare, and we should let the IESG do its job of making
> decisions based on availa
On 9/5/2012 10:50 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:06 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
I'd be supportive of allowing the IESG to make a decision to remove I-Ds based
on court orders, abuse, and other well-justified reasons.
Such events would be rare, and we should let the IESG do its job o
Hi,
I support this statement, with the additions suggested by Sam Hartman,
John Klensin, and (most importantly) Brian Carpenter.
In addition, I would suggest adding clarifying text to the extent that
I-Ds will remain to be stored in non publicly accessible form, unless
removal is required by a cour
Hi Brian,
At 09:04 05-09-2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
That's an interesting but not very informative statement.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg71391.html
I think the IESG needs to keep the flexibility to do that, although
in all normal circumstances the answer should b
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi Ted,
>
> I think an I-D can be removed from the I-D directory by replacing it with
> another I-D (possibly with null content, or possibly with tombstone text)
> using
> existing process.
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
Hi Adrian,
That's true, and i
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:46 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> a) Stream owner approval for streams outside the IETF stream
>> (documents identified as irtf or IAB).
>> b) Relevant AD for WG documents
>> c) IESG for individual submissions, with any AD able to put
>> the matter to the IESG.
>
> At leas
--On Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:02 -0700 SM
wrote:
> At 09:04 05-09-2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> That's an interesting but not very informative statement.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg71391.html
Of course, there is a case to be made that, if we had a mor
> The IESG is considering this IESG Statement. Comments from the
> community are solicited.
i presume that you have done your legal homework and know what you are
doing. and i try not to play amateur lawyer.
so it seems like a good thing to me.
randy
Hi John,
At 12:59 05-09-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
Of course, there is a case to be made that, if we had a more
sophisticated posting system that enforced the few rules we
already have, it would not have been accepted and posted in the
first place. Individual drafts are supposed to be title
dra
On 9/5/2012 3:16 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
The IESG is considering this IESG Statement. Comments from the
community are solicited.
i presume that you have done your legal homework
alas, they hadn't.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--On Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:32 -0700 Ted Hardie
wrote:
> For third party requests to remove others' independent
> submissions, I think there should be a pretty high bar. "Open
> submission" is a key part of "open standards", in my opinion,
> and if it becomes overly easy to cause sub
This is a reminder that the 2012-2013 Nominating Committee (NomCom)
is seeking nominations from now until September 24, 2012 .
Additionally, this is an announcement that the NomCom is seeking
feedback on individuals who have accepted nominations for IETF
leadership positions. As we are following
27 matches
Mail list logo
