On 10-Jun-26 07:41, Salz, Rich wrote:
I read the -04 draft. I do not support adoption for the following reasons.
adoption != approval, so I think that's a bit strong.
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 draft already cites RFC 9775. I agree that things should be worded
carefully to avoid pointless documentation. My impression is that the IRTF
wouldn't need to do anything, but that's for the IRTF to say.
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.
Correct. But if the IETF does reach a consensus, that should inform what we do
here.
What is the impact on
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9281.html#name-document-editor-or-author?
None that I can see.
What is the impact on the staff roles of 2418/2418bis?
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418/#section-6.3?
None that I can see.
That’s already four places where this draft steps into existing streams or RFCs.
No, I don't see that it steps in at all; I certainly drafted it with every
intention of changing nothing within the streams. That's exactly why is says
that dispute resolution is done by the streams; it actually makes it clearer
than today that authorship (and editorship) is decided by the streams.
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?
That might arise anyway for the issue of AI-generated text, or alternatively,
the IETF might be quite satisfied with what we end up sending to the RSAB. I
really don't see any other such issues, because I think the draft is compatible
with IETF current practice.
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.
We've already discussed that in terms of ensuring that the RSAB last call is
extended to the IETF list(s). But anyway, there's no way guidelines for *all*
streams can be published on the IETF stream. I don't see what this is a
problem; it's exactly why the Editorial stream was invented and why the RSAB
was constituted.
Regards
Brian
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
