I read the -04 draft. I do not support adoption for the following reasons.
I think that it was already pointed out that IRTF follows academic standards for defining authors, editors, and acknowledgements. When published, this draft would require the IRTF to provide its own overriding view. The topic of AI-authored content is currently a big thread on the ietf@ and wgchairs@ mailing lists. If that diverges from whatever this draft ends up with, it would require the IETF to provide its own overriding view, once they have a consensus. What is the impact on https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9281.html#name-document-editor-or-author ? What is the impact on the staff roles of 2418/2418bis? https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418/#section-6.3 ? That’s already four places where this draft steps into existing streams or RFCs. Consider how long it would take to get the per-stream overrides/clarifications published. Even if it were done in parallel with the progression of this draft, it’s very difficult. For the IETF issues, would it be included in a recharter of PROCON? This document needs IETF consensus; is there a way for RSWG or RSAB to ensure that happens? I don’t think so. The only way I know of is to publish this on the IETF stream.
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
