On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 10:33 PM Brian E Carpenter < [email protected]> wrote:
> Eric, > > Some more comments in line: > > On 27-May-26 05:37, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 10:42 PM Brian E Carpenter < > [email protected] <mailto:[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]> <mailto: > [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. > > So, we need the RSWG as a whole to decide this. > Sure. Provided of course that the RSWG even has consensus to adopt this draft. > > > 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. > > I don't see anything in 2418 (or 2418bis) about removing authors, and > I'm not sure I recall any cases of authors being removed against their > will. The text covers the case of voluntary withdrawal of an author. > > "A working group generally designates a person or persons to serve as the Editor for a particular document." ISTM that "designates" includes the ability to un-designate. WRT to removal, I've certainly seen people removed from documents at adoption time. For example, consider QUIC: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hamilton-quic-transport-protocol/01/ The authors are: Ryan Hamilton , Jana Iyengar , Ian Swett , Alyssa Wilk This was broken up into several drafts, eventually with new editors designated by the WG chairs and Ryan and Alyssa appear on none of them. > "Copyright Eligibility: In many jurisdictions, including the United > States, works that are entirely generated by AI lack human authorship and > cannot be copyrighted. Authors must disclose AI text to ensure that only > the human-generated portions are protected. > Do you have an actual cite that shows this to be the case? I would observe that this problem already exists pre-AI because we might be incorporating public domain material, but we don't designate that specially. Nor would the kind of disclosure you propose be helpful unless we were to explicitly designate which portions were unprotected. > Avoiding Fraud: Failing to declare AI usage on copyright applications can > invalidate your registration and may be deemed fraud upon regulatory bodies > like the Copyright Office. > This seems irrelevant unless all of the content of the document is machine generated, which seems highly unlikely. For that matter, do we even register our copyrights? > Preventing "Hallucinations": AI models can hallucinate false facts, > references, and data. Disclosure allows readers and reviewers to critically > evaluate claims and ensures the author takes full accountability for > verifying the material. > This is already covered under authors being responsible for the contents. Reader Preferences: Readers expect transparency regarding AI involvement to > assess the value and credibility of what they are consuming." > This is just assuming the premise. -Ekr
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
