On 25-Jun-26 06:34, 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.
And guess what? Such issues are not addressed in the draft.
*
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.
I'm seeing a lot of recent IETF stream drafts that manifestly have a large
amount of AI-generated content. The draft doesn't take a position on whether
this is good, bad, important or unimportant.
This group was created to address editorial and format issues, not content. Attempts to specify content controls are out of charter.
1) The draft doesn't attempt to specify content controls. If you think there's
text that unintentionally does so, please send details. It talks about
authorship, editorship, contributors, and acknowledgements, not substantive
content.
2) The RSWG was created to propose policy.
"The RSWG proposes policies that govern the RFC Series as a whole..." [Section
2 of RFC9920]
I can't find any words in RFC 9920, or RFC 9280, that limit "policy" to
editorial and format issues.
To repeat myself: go to the biggest content producer in the IETF and work on it
there.
The whole point is guidelines that are stream-independent. As has already been
discussed here, if this work proceeds it should certainly be reviewed by all
the streams, but at a later stage.
On 25-Jun-26 08:16, Jay Daley wrote:
So one way forward, though I am not advocating for this, is for the RSWG to produce something solely related to RFCs and the IESG to follow whatever process it thinks appropriate to adopt that for I-Ds.
I _am_ advocating for that and the -05 draft is compatible with that.
On 25-Jun-26 10:59, Paul Hoffman wrote:
My understanding, and I’m happy to be corrected on this, is that Internet-Drafts are solely controlled by the IESG under the standards process as they are defined in RFC 2026.
I find this surprising and disturbing, but I have no evidence that this is
incorrect, even after a bunch of searching on my own. It makes sense
historically, but even in 1996 there were IAB and IRTF documents (and maybe
ISE-like ones?). Still, someone had to be the owner of the rules, and RFC 2026
sure looks like that.
And, assuming that this is all true, it doubles down on the idea that this
discussion does not belong in the RSWG. If the IESG wants to host the
discussion (and maybe Brian's draft), that's great.
If this draft was about I-Ds, that would be true. But it isn't; it's about
RFCs. Since it's a draft about the real world, it mentions the fact that the
final approved draft is what the RPC transforms into an RFC, but it doesn't
look further back into history than the final approved draft**. As such, IMHO
it's in scope for the RSWG (and nowhere else).
** That was not true of the -00 version. The -05 version is very different. I
do take notice of people's comments.
Regards/Ngā mihi
Brian Carpenter
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
