On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 3:23 PM Brian E Carpenter < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 05-Jun-26 09:26, Eric Rescorla wrote: > ... > > In addition, Brian writes: > > > > > If the community doesn't want such a rule, fine, but IMHO it needs to > be a > > > wider community than the RSWG that reaches that conclusion.. > > > > This is backwards. No such rule currently exists and so any change > > to require one would need the broader community to come to consensus > > that one is needed, *not* the community to come to the conclusion that > > one is not needed. > > No such rule currently exists but there was quite a bit of discussion > a while back about the issue of AI slop in general [1]. I've read some of that thread and it seems to be about yet a different issue, which is managing increased volumes of submissions, not about attributing the source of content introduced by WG participants as part of the WG process. > All I'm saying is > that the issue should be put to the wider community. Huh? The way our process works is that you start with the relevant venue (either here or GENDISPATCH) and then once you get rough consensus in that venue, then the broader community gets to weigh in on the output. We're still at the step where we see if the relevant venue even should take it up at all. > I'm very willing to > mark it clearly in the draft as an open issue. > As I've said a number of times, that assumes there should be any draft at all, which isn't a decided question. Pete, Russ, do you think you could help steer the discussion a bit to help us get to a resolution? -Ekr > [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/nF3dMSD-xGK5T_0m1C_c9Rx3fm4 > > Brian >
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
