On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 10:42 PM Brian E Carpenter < [email protected]> wrote:
> Eric, > > On 20-May-26 11:13, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 3:40 PM Brian E Carpenter < > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > So, I haven't seen any comments. > > > > Either that means everybody is 100% happy with the draft > > > > > > Definitely not this one. > > > > Overall I continue to believe that these decisions should be > > taken on a stream-by-stream basis, > > I don't see it as very different from IPR, where the IETF (appropriately) > led the way, and the other streams followed. In this case, it just seems > natural for the Editorial stream to lead. > To you, perhaps, but not to me. > > > > Other aspects are that personal or business considerations should not > > affect accuracy and balance, and any hidden conflicts of interest > > should be documented. > > > > This doesn't seem like it applies to RFCs where authors routinely > > work on commercial implementations, especially given the fiction > > that people participate as individuals. Indeed, AFAIK there is > > no requirement that people routinely identify their employers > > at all. > > No. (But we do have a CoI policy for our "officials": > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/iesg-coi-policy/) > I don't see what that has to do with authors. > > > > There are quite a few subjective judgements to be made about whether > > a contribution is substantial enough to count as authorship. What > > fraction of new or corrected text counts? Is a particular concept or > > brilliant idea enough? Should the author of a previous trail-blazing > > document be invited to join? Should someone who promised to > > contribute significantly, but only contributed fragments, be removed? > > It is hard to give definite guidelines for such cases. > > > > This graf and indeed this whole section just doesn't line up well > > with RFC 2418, which explicitly invests the WG with the power to > > define a Document Editor for WG documents, without regard to the size > > of their contributions. Section 5 similarly does not line up well. > > I don't really see any misalignment. You're correct that 2418 is > authoritative for the IETF stream, and I've added a reference to > 2418bis in the # Editors section. > The misalignment is that the editor mihgt make no creative contributions at all and someone who did all the original work might be removed from the author list. This is explicitly permitted by 2418 and largely inconsistent with your text. > > > > S 9. > > * If a substantial part of the document was created by AI this must > > be disclosed clearly and in detail, typically in the > > Acknowledgements section. > > > > I do not agree with this as a general requirement. As I said > > originally, the place to start here is with some description of the > > problem this requirement is trying to solve. > > I'll concede that "clearly and in detail" is unjustified. But IMHO > the need for disclosure doesn't need any justification. > It's not a matter of justifying it in the text (yet). Rather, I don't agree that there is a need for disclosure, so I'm asking you to offer an argument. -Ekr
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
