Nathanael, Opinions vary, and if people care to look at the current draft, it says:
* __OPEN ISSUE whether to include this:__ 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. We certainly need to test community consensus on this. As for "enforcement", it's no harder or easier than for IPR disclosures. Regards/Ngā mihi Brian On 06-Jun-26 09:36, Nathanael Ritz wrote:
Hi Brian, On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 2:44 PM Brian E Carpenter <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Nothing in any version of the draft suggests changing anything, except requiring disclosure. I don't really understand why that is regarded as undesirable or onerous. There is indeed a lot of FUD as well as valid concern about AI usage these days but I don't think a disclosure requirement contributes to either of those. I am curious to what intent or productive purpose there is in making disclosure a “requirement”? If it’s merely “truth in advertising” then I would leave it off. Ironically, I stumbled across the IETF 88 Technical Plenary recently thanks to the YT algorithm and (correct me if I’m wrong but) it seems to me that many, many documents struggle with Security Considerations despite many good reasons for it to be a requirement. Also a requirement might suggest some form of related community enforcement may be necessary or implied, and that also sounds like an opportunity for an unfalsifiable mess. Cheers, Nathanael
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
