yup > On Jun 7, 2026, at 7:08 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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]
