Hi Rich,
At 11:34 AM 24-06-2026, Salz, Rich wrote:
> concepts surrounding authorship are nevertheless universal.
No they're not. That's why we have things like Berne Copyright and
Universal Rights of the Author, Wassenar Munitions controls and the like.
The are several countries which agreed to the Berne convention:
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20828/volume-828-I-11850-English.pdf
I would agree with the person who wrote the text which you quoted
given that the convention was incorporated in domestic laws across the world.
* Let's put this another way: could you really envision
different streams having different policies? And if so, (here
comes the broken record), what is the user to infer about authorship?
I could imagine an IRSG or ISE draft that had a large amount of AI content.
This group was created to address editorial and format issues, not
content. Attempts to specify content controls are out of charter.
To repeat myself: go to the biggest content producer in the IETF and
work on it there.
This group was created to take over the responsibilities which were
previously held by the IAB. The person taking responsibility for
the content is the author (Section 5.6 of BCP 78). Most of the
authors "publish" within the IETF. A session is scheduled at a place
and date where a significant number of authors will be present. It's
somewhat like going to the IETF and work there.
If there are members of the IRSG on this list, they could identify
themselves and share their views on whether they saw a large amount
of AI content. I reviewed a few drafts which came through that
Stream. I didn't noticed anything which might point to AI
content. For what it is worth, some, if not all of the drafts were
discussed at some point within the Standards process.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
