Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2026, at 12:21, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> * If, however, a substantial part of the document was created by AI >> this must be disclosed, typically in the Acknowledgements >> section. This requirement is to avoid any confusion about the >> authorship of the document and to ensure that its readers are not >> misled.
> Why let people duck responsibility that way?
I agree.
> I'd prefer if there be a *prohibition* on such notices.
> That might also justify prohibiting this acknowledgment:
> This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
> As a reader of an RFC, I almost negatively care about the tooling in
> the general sense. There are places where tooling is important
For I-Ds, it sometimes matters to know what "limitations" the author is
dealing with, but I agree: it generally belongs at most in a comment.
Once it's been through the RPC, none of that matters.
>> I definitely don't think the RSWG should get into a discussion of
>> copyright,
> I don't think we can avoid it entirely, but it seems sensible to keep
> it out of scope for this effort.
We need to positively know who wrote the document, such that we can get
copyright stuff done. While the USSA does not do moral rights, the rest of
the world does, and one aspect of that is being acknowledged.
If some text can't be copyrighted, then I'm not sure how it can be "licensed"
to the IETF. (Please forgive my imprecision here)
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
** My working hours and your working hours may be different. **
** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours **
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
