On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 5:06 PM Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2026, at 07:38, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > That's a non-answer. I've submitted many PRs to I-Ds and I can't think > > of any instance in which anyone has asked me if my text was original, > > and I doubt very much they are running plagiarism detectors, so to the > > extent to which this is the author's responsibility, I don't see much > > evidence they are fulfilling it. If you are creating a new requirement, > > I think you should first demonstrate it's practical. > > This is because there is an implicit expectation: you are expected to not > submit plagiarized material and we don't bother to check because we trust > that people will not do that. Our I-D repositories generally reference the > IPMC licensing requirements for contributions, which require that when a > contributor makes a contribution, they make certain licensing commitments. > Implicit in that is the requirement that a contributor is authorized to > make those commitments, which would not be the case if the material were > plagiarized. > This is mostly but not entirely true. For example, the original material could be in the public domain, as recognized by the first sentence of S 5.3." To the extent that a Contribution or any portion thereof is protected by copyright or other rights of authorship,". That doesn't preclude it being plagiarized. However, I think the important point here is that it's not the *author's* burden to verify that the content is not plagiarized in this case. Rather they are just relying on the contributor not to submit plagiarized material. This, I agree, is a respect in which AI tools may be different. However, new text that stated that the author was generally responsible for ensuring proper provenance of material rather than just with respect to AI would be new, and I believe unworkable. -Ekr
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
