On 08-Jun-26 10:47, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Sun, Jun 7, 2026 at 3:43 PM Scott O. Bradner <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 2026, at 6:33 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Snip
> I think our discussion here should be about ethical expectations.
Our rules have required that major contributors be acknowledged for quite a
while - why would
that not include AI contributors?
I think answering this question would require looking at the precise rules in
play and understanding their purpose.
With that said, RFC 7322 does not appear to contain any actual such
requirements. Which language did you have in mind here?
I'm guessing Scott is thinking of RFC5378/BCP78:
"5.6. Representations and Warranties
With respect to each Contribution, each Contributor represents that,
to the best of his or her knowledge and ability:
a. The Contribution properly acknowledges all Contributors, including
Indirect Contributors."
But I think you're right that it isn't stated as an _ethical guideline_ anywhere. That's
new, and what we're debating is whether it also applies to AI "contributors".
Brian
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
