I like this.
Nit: There's a missing to in the last line.
consensus is
needed to remove an I-D from the Public I-D Archive.
Comments from the community are solicited on the revised draft IESG statement.
On behalf of the IESG,
Russ
--- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT ---
SUBJECT: Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
SUBJECT: Removal
An I-D will only be removed from the Public I-D Archive under unusual
circumstances with consensus of the IESG. ...
If circumstances permit, a removed
I-D will be replaced with a tombstone file that describes the reason that
the I-D was removed from the Public I-D Archive.
That seems much
On 9/25/2012 9:03 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Hi Dave,
Independent Stream authors well might not be part of the IETF -- always a strange line of
thinking, given that the IETF doesn't have members -- but that doesn't
mean that the Stream itself is outside the IETF.
Any I-D author MUST be
Hi Russ,
I think that statement you made is very reasonable which I would prefer
groups work to the best of IETF purposes, but also we need to know the
reason why some individuals fail to convince an IETF WG. It is important
that individuals get to make input to new standards not only companies.
Hi Dave,
Independent Stream authors well might not be part of the IETF -- always
a strange line of thinking, given that the IETF doesn't have members -- but
that doesn't mean that the Stream itself is outside the IETF.
Any I-D author MUST be part of IETF otherwise what is IETF then, how do we
--On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 16:50 +0100 Abdussalam Baryun
abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that statement you made is very reasonable which I
would prefer groups work to the best of IETF purposes, but
also we need to know the reason why some individuals fail to
convince an
Hi Abdussalam,
At 08:50 25-09-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I think that statement you made is very reasonable which I would
prefer groups work to the best of IETF purposes, but also we need to
know the reason why some individuals fail to convince an IETF WG. It
is important that individuals
Hi SM,
I ment to say that if independent stream cannot submit a standard track
document, then do we have a procedure for the WG to accept or not consider?
The last call that you refered to was a WG not independent.
AB
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:08 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Hi Abdussalam,
Hi Abdussalam,
At 10:19 25-09-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I ment to say that if independent stream cannot submit a standard
track document, then do we have a procedure for the WG to accept or
not consider? The last call that you refered to was a WG not independent.
There is no such thing
SMThere is no such thing as an Independent Stream submitting a Standards
Track document. An author can submit an I-D through the IETF Stream if the
author would like the I-D to be published on the Standards Track. A WG can
adopt such an I-D.
RussThe Independent Submission Stream cannot be used to
.
On behalf of the IESG,
Russ
--- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT ---
SUBJECT: Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) are working documents of the IETF. I-Ds provide
important historical records for the open and transparent operation of
the IETF. Other
Russ,
On 9/24/2012 7:02 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
Dave:
The IESG has updated the draft IESG Statement based on the many
comments that have been received. It is clear that the community
wants the IESG to be able to remove an Internet-Draft from the
Public I-D Archive without a court order to do
Dave:
This second basis looks sufficiently broad and vague to invite its
own abuse and certainly inconsistent application. Did IETF counsel
express comfort with this language?
Counsel has been consulted. After exchanging several messages, this
is the resulting text. This text was never
From: Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net
Apparently you consider the IRTF, IAB and RFC Editor all to be outside
the IETF.
You apparently seem (from this) to think they're not? Wow.
Noel
event.
Comments from the community are solicited on the revised draft IESG statement.
On behalf of the IESG,
Russ
--- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT ---
SUBJECT: Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) are working documents of the IETF. I-Ds provide
important historical
STATEMENT ---
SUBJECT: Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) are working documents of the IETF. I-Ds provide
important historical records for the open and transparent operation of
the IETF. Other individuals and groups, including the IAB and IRTF
Answering two bits I happen know the answers to:
On 9/21/12 7:48 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
--- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT ---
[...]
While entries in the I-D Repository are subject to change or removal
at any time,
They are? Is this new? I thought the only established removal policy
was the
--On Saturday, September 22, 2012 09:33 -0500 Pete Resnick
presn...@qualcomm.com wrote:
...
An I-D will only be removed from the Public I-D Archive with
consensus of the IESG. There are two situations when the
IESG will take this action. First, to comply with a duly
authorized court
On 9/22/2012 7:33 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
Counsel actually wanted us to broaden the language, thinking abuse was
too limiting.
Wow. Well, that certainly satisfies the question I asked.
Thanks, I think.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
Hi John,
At 09:49 20-09-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
post-expiration. I think that, as a community, we ought to
respect those assumptions more than saying, effectively, we are
going to maintain a public archive no matter what commitments
you thought were made to you because we can and because we
On Sep 20, 2012, at 21:22, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
We just had a consensus call in one WG on adopting a draft that at this time
had been expired for a year.
The chairs didn't notice, because the URI was stable (as it should be).
Send a message with a subject line of Resurrect I-D file
(My problem was not that draft expiry makes the process more complicated, but
that the chairs didn't notice the expiry and I can't blame them.)
Well, the system does send out automatic reminders (entitled Expiration
Impending: draft-foo) to all authors and copied to the WG chairs.
So not
Hi Carsten,
At 06:11 21-09-2012, Carsten Bormann wrote:
Actually, in this case I'd rather have the author resubmit, just to
make sure not only the rest of the WG, but also the author continues
to like the draft...
(But I'm not chair for this WG.)
It's better if the author resubmits the
I believe that the IETF has all of the necessary rights to reproduce,
distribute, and display publicly all Internet-Drafts. Here is my analysis:
In RFC 1310, March 1992, the IAB describes Internet-Drafts, but
it does not define the rights that contributors grant. As best I can
determine, the
of the IESG,
Russ
--- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT ---
SUBJECT: Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) are working documents of the IETF. I-Ds provide
important historical records for the open and transparent operation of
the IETF. Other individuals and groups, including
Hi, Russ,
FWIW, you seem to be conveniently ignoring at least two issues:
1) all the IDs before March 1994
which should not be published at all until
permission is given (opt-in)
2) all the IDs published before boilerplate inclusion was required
the IETF cannot merely
Looks good to me.
Jari
Overall I like this--enough wiggle-room to deal with situations we cannot
foresee now, but still sufficient guidance for the IESGs to come. One
small issue, inline.
Stephan
On 9.21.2012 13:45 , IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote:
[...]
When an I-D is removed from the Public I-D Archive, a copy
On Sep 21, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
And, ultimately, this won't be determined by analysis, but by a court.
These kinds of threats seem a bit over the top.
--Paul Hoffman
On 9/21/2012 2:48 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Sep 21, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
And, ultimately, this won't be determined by analysis, but by a court.
These kinds of threats seem a bit over the top.
It was an observation, not a threat (at all).
No analysis of legal
Joe,
While I've somewhat sympathetic to your position -- I don't
think the IETF should be supporting a public archival collection
of expired I-Ds, especially older ones, either-- I think you are
getting a little over the top. Specifically...
--On Friday, September 21, 2012 13:54 -0700 Joe Touch
On 9/21/2012 4:38 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Joe,
While I've somewhat sympathetic to your position -- I don't
think the IETF should be supporting a public archival collection
of expired I-Ds, especially older ones, either-- I think you are
getting a little over the top. Specifically...
--On
on the revised draft IESG statement.
On behalf of the IESG,
Russ
--- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT ---
SUBJECT: Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) are working documents of the IETF. I-Ds provide
important historical records for the open and transparent operation of
the IETF
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, Dave Crocker wrote:
While entries in the I-D Repository are subject to change or removal
at any time,
They are? Is this new? I thought the only established removal policy was the
regular 6-month timeout.
Can't the author replace the repository version at any
On 9/21/2012 6:41 PM, David Morris wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, Dave Crocker wrote:
While entries in the I-D Repository are subject to change or removal
at any time,
They are? Is this new? I thought the only established removal policy was the
regular 6-month timeout.
Can't the author
On 9/19/2012 3:31 PM, John Levine wrote:
In article 505a2b08.70...@isi.edu you write:
On 9/19/2012 11:24 AM, John Levine wrote:
Utility can determine whether it's worth the effort/expense to run a
public archive, but your utility never undermines my rights as an author.
We're very deep
--On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 23:38 +0200 Carsten Bormann
c...@tzi.org wrote:
...
Until there is a court decision impacting this usefulness (or
one can be reasonably expected), the legal angle is simply
irrelevant.
(Just keeping the thread alive so it doesn't seem that
everybody
On 9/19/2012 2:38 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Sep 19, 2012, at 22:28, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
I'm simply refuting *any* argument that starts with because it's
useful to the community.
Interestingly, these kinds of arguments are the only ones I'm
interested in.
Until there is a
On Sep 20, 2012, at 18:49, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
I personally don't consider it very likely that someone would
actually sue or convince some appropriate prosecutor to come
after us. But, however one assesses the likelihood of that
happening and of that party winning, I
Hi Carsten,
At 10:28 20-09-2012, Carsten Bormann wrote:
We just had a consensus call in one WG on adopting a draft that at
this time had been expired for a year.
The chairs didn't notice, because the URI was stable (as it should be).
Send a message with a subject line of Resurrect I-D file to
On 9/16/2012 6:56 AM, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
...
It is VERY useful to be able to search through drafts to see how we
got here, AND to see things that were explored and abandoned.
Thieves find it very useful to have what they steal. That doesn't
legitimize their theft.
Utility can
On 9/18/12 11:46 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 9/16/2012 6:56 AM, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
...
It is VERY useful to be able to search through drafts to see how we
got here, AND to see things that were explored and abandoned.
Thieves find it very useful to have what they steal. That doesn't
Joe Touch wrote:
Lawrence Conroy wrote:
It is VERY useful to be able to search through drafts to see how we
got here, AND to see things that were explored and abandoned.
Thieves find it very useful to have what they steal. That doesn't
legitimize their theft.
Utility can determine
Utility can determine whether it's worth the effort/expense to run a
public archive, but your utility never undermines my rights as an author.
We're very deep into Junior Lawyer territory here.
You might want to review RFC 3978, section 3.3a, in which contributors
make a:
perpetual,
On 9/19/2012 11:24 AM, John Levine wrote:
Utility can determine whether it's worth the effort/expense to run a
public archive, but your utility never undermines my rights as an author.
We're very deep into Junior Lawyer territory here.
I'm not. I'm simply refuting *any* argument that
On Sep 19, 2012, at 22:28, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
I'm simply refuting *any* argument that starts with because it's useful to
the community.
Interestingly, these kinds of arguments are the only ones I'm interested in.
Until there is a court decision impacting this usefulness (or one
In article 505a2b08.70...@isi.edu you write:
On 9/19/2012 11:24 AM, John Levine wrote:
Utility can determine whether it's worth the effort/expense to run a
public archive, but your utility never undermines my rights as an author.
We're very deep into Junior Lawyer territory here.
I'm not.
Hi Scott, folks,
with due deference to Joe Touch Bill Manning, whenever I have
created/requested publication of an I-D, it never occurred to me that I was
actually withdrawing the rights I had signed up to after six months (i.e.,
insisting on removal). That seems a novel reading of the
On 9/16/2012 6:56 AM, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
Hi Scott, folks,
with due deference to Joe Touch Bill Manning, whenever I have
created/requested publication of an I-D, it never occurred to me that I was
actually withdrawing the rights I had signed up to after six months (i.e.,
insisting on
On 9/14/2012 7:38 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 07:24:12AM -0700, tglassey wrote:
For instance - how do you deal with an ID which was originally
published under one set of IP rights and another later one - or a
derivative work which is published under a separate set of
--On Thursday, September 13, 2012 23:59 + John Levine
jo...@taugh.com wrote:
Censorship? Sheesh.
...
As I think I've said several times before, if we think the
IESG would start gratuitously deleting stuff, we have much
worse problems than any policy statement could solve.
+1
Exactly.
On 9/13/2012 8:40 PM, John Levine wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are
IPR issues related to making expired drafts available?
Yes. Depends on the IDs, when they were authored, and which version of
the boilerplate they contain.
Can you give a concrete
On 9/13/2012 9:23 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
There were times when there were no rights granted explicitly, at
least. I indicated the three ranges in a previous mail.
Joe
On 9/13/2012 8:40 PM, John Levine wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are
IPR issues
On 9/13/2012 10:35 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Note well, as you noted well, does not go back to the beginning of all
IDs.
I.e., this is a tangled mess of different copyrights, different note
wells, etc., and it's not as simple as it's the IETF's right to do
anything except - maybe - going forward
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 07:24:12AM -0700, tglassey wrote:
For instance - how do you deal with an ID which was originally
published under one set of IP rights and another later one - or a
derivative work which is published under a separate set of rights -
which functionally contravenes or
I don't think that the Note Well note has much to do with what Joe started
talking about
we have had this discussion before
quite a few years ago (pre tools) I suggested moving expired IDs to an
expired IDs directory
rather than removing them from the IETF public repository as well as posting
Joe Touch wrote:
There's nothing in the quote above that says that the expired document
will not be available *in the archive*.
There's nothing that says it won't be available by Santa Claus delivery
either. However, the document states how things will be made available,
and how that
On 9/12/2012 11:01 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
While the 6-month timer (or any earlier I-D update!!) will, in fact,
change how the*IETF* distributes and promotes a particular I-D (version),
there is actually*NO* limitation in what folks downloading I-Ds
with the URLs from the i-d-announce I-D
--On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 23:13 -0400 Barry Leiba
barryle...@computer.org wrote:
...
There's nothing in the quote above that says that the expired
document will not be available *in the archive*. It says that
it will be removed *from the repository*, which it is... and
the text
On 9/12/2012 11:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
But nothing in the above, nor in the text you cite, requires
that _keep_ imply guarantee to have available for retrieval
over the network by any interested party, with no requirement
for a special request.
It's interesting how this line of
On 9/13/2012 12:02 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 9/12/2012 11:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
But nothing in the above, nor in the text you cite, requires
that _keep_ imply guarantee to have available for retrieval
over the network by any interested party, with no requirement
for a special
--On Thursday, September 13, 2012 00:19 -0700 Joe Touch
to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 9/13/2012 12:02 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 9/12/2012 11:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
But nothing in the above, nor in the text you cite, requires
that _keep_ imply guarantee to have available for retrieval
Joe == Joe Touch to...@isi.edu writes:
Joe On 9/5/2012 7:51 AM, SM wrote:
Joe ...
Creating a perpetual I-D archive for the sake of rfcdiff is not a
good idea as it goes against the notion of letting an I-D expire
gracefully.
Joe +1
Joe Let's not forget there was
I find the archives very useful, especially when you have your own I-D
history and contribution to WG works perhaps. It helps to show
different views, the synergism, the competitive engineering views, the
history, etc behind the final development of WG work.
Whenever I do find a need to
On 9/12/12 11:19 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
PirateBay believes this too, and helps make movies available for public
access, honoring pragmatics.
I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are
IPR issues related to making expired drafts available?
Melinda
PirateBay believes this too, and helps make movies available for public
access, honoring pragmatics.
I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are
IPR issues related to making expired drafts available?
And since we've had a public archive of expired drafts for
Joe,
So it's not a slam dunk that you have the rights you think for every
I-D; you definitely don't have those rights for IDs
We're NOT talking about rights that were transfered from the document
author to arbitrary third parties here, but about rights that were
given to the IETF (IETF
is considering this IESG Statement. Comments from the community are
solicited.
On behalf of the IESG,
Russ
--- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT ---
SUBJECT: Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) are working documents of the IETF, its Areas,
and its Working Groups
On 9/13/2012 2:35 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
OLD
An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance
with a duly authorized court order.
NEW
The IETF Chair may decide to removed an I-D from the public I-D archive.
This defines the IETF Chair as Chief Censor,
The IETF Chair may decide to removed an I-D from the public I-D archive.
This defines the IETF Chair as Chief Censor, with no written policy
guidance. That is, deletion is at the whimsy of the Chair.
Is that really what we (and the Chair) want?
I very much agree. I'm happy with the
On 9/13/2012 3:08 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
The IETF Chair may decide to removed an I-D from the public I-D archive.
This defines the IETF Chair as Chief Censor, with no written policy
guidance. That is, deletion is at the whimsy of the Chair.
Is that really what we (and the Chair) want?
I
Dave,
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 03:10:51PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
I believe we /do/ need a written policy that has been reviewed
by legal counsel.
I think the lengthy discussion that we have seen on this topic proofs that
we should NOT have a written policy.
Deal with this on a
David,
On 9/13/2012 3:25 PM, David Kessens wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 03:10:51PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
I believe we /do/ need a written policy that has been reviewed
by legal counsel.
I think the lengthy discussion that we have seen on this topic proofs that
we should NOT
Dave,
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 03:43:01PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
Essentially none of the enlightened discussion on this thread
considered legal ramifications of potentially arbitrary censorship
by a public group such as ourselves.
Aren't you going a little overboard in hyperbole here ?
On 9/13/2012 3:54 PM, David Kessens wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 03:43:01PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
Essentially none of the enlightened discussion on this thread
considered legal ramifications of potentially arbitrary censorship
by a public group such as ourselves.
Aren't you going a
--On Thursday, September 13, 2012 15:10 -0700 Dave Crocker
dcroc...@bbiw.net wrote:
On 9/13/2012 3:08 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
The IETF Chair may decide to removed an I-D from the
public I-D archive.
This defines the IETF Chair as Chief Censor, with no written
policy guidance. That is,
I very much agree. I'm happy with the decision being the consensus of
a board, but not giving it to an individual.
So give it to the IESG and we can stop arguing about it.
I have to say, the urge to post a few I-D's consisting of snuff porn
is nearly irresistible.
R's,
John
I believe we /do/ need a written policy that has been reviewed by
legal counsel. Even with a group -- versus individual -- we should not
create possible charges of censorship up to the personal whims of the
moment.
Censorship? Sheesh.
The IETF is not the government. We have no
It shows a tendency of the active IETF discussants to resist doing the
work of settling on policy for the IETF. That's quite different from
demonstrating a lack of /need/.
The IETF has been around for 26 years, and has had, I gather, zero
removal requests to date.
If that doesn't demonstrate
On 9/13/2012 12:28 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
Joe,
So it's not a slam dunk that you have the rights you think for every
I-D; you definitely don't have those rights for IDs
We're NOT talking about rights that were transfered from the document
author to arbitrary third parties here, but about
On 9/13/2012 11:04 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 9/12/12 11:19 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
PirateBay believes this too, and helps make movies available for public
access, honoring pragmatics.
I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are
IPR issues related to making expired
I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are
IPR issues related to making expired drafts available?
Yes. Depends on the IDs, when they were authored, and which version of
the boilerplate they contain.
Can you give a concrete example of an I-D with this problem? I
There were times when there were no rights granted explicitly, at least.
I indicated the three ranges in a previous mail.
Joe
On 9/13/2012 8:40 PM, John Levine wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are
IPR issues related to making expired drafts available?
Joe Touch wrote:
There were times when there were no rights granted explicitly, at least.
I indicated the three ranges in a previous mail.
In which case the Note Well concludently applies to the I-D contents,
which seems to have first appeared on www.ietf.org around 2001,
Note well, as you noted well, does not go back to the beginning of all IDs.
I.e., this is a tangled mess of different copyrights, different note
wells, etc., and it's not as simple as it's the IETF's right to do
anything except - maybe - going forward with a new copyright statement
for IDs.
Barry Leiba wrote:
This raises the question of what expires means.
At the least, if IDs are published publicly forever, then expires is no
longer meaningful and the entirety of that notion needs to be expunged
from the ID process.
You seem to think it means something like expunged
On 9/12/2012 5:59 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
Barry Leiba wrote:
This raises the question of what expires means.
At the least, if IDs are published publicly forever, then expires is no
longer meaningful and the entirety of that notion needs to be expunged
from the ID process.
You seem to think
I think it means no longer current for the purposes of work and
discussion.
Nothing in the Note Well, but there is specific text in the ID Guidelines
(written by the IESG):
http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt
8. Expiring
An Internet-Draft will expire exactly 185 days
Hi, Barry,
On 9/12/2012 8:13 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
I think it means no longer current for the purposes of work and
discussion.
Nothing in the Note Well, but there is specific text in the ID Guidelines
(written by the IESG):
http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt
8. Expiring
--On Monday, September 10, 2012 15:07 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:26:29AM -0700,
ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
No, the response is that we refer you to our policy. As an
open organization we do not remove information once posted,
Or we can voluntarily
turn the trend around, one step at a time, starting with
rejecting this proposed statement in favor of discretion,
flexibility, and intelligence (and definitely not a statement/
policy of even more complexity) and maybe even including do we
really have resources for this
On Sep 11, 2012, at 15:10, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
rejecting this proposed statement in favor of discretion,
I'm not privy to the circumstances that caused the original proposal to come up.
Maybe the reason was that the IESG *wants* its hands bound so there is no
further need
Hi John,
On 9/9/12 8:43 PM, John Levine wrote:
Let's say I write to the IESG and say this:
Due to a late night editing error, draft-foo-bar-42 which I
submitted yesterday contains several paragraphs of company
confidential information which you can easily see are irrelevant to
the
On Sep 8, 2012, at 8:36 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 9/8/2012 11:59 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 9/8/12 10:51 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
Nothing about an ID is inherently obsolete or out of date after 6 months
except its being publicly available on authorized sites (up until now).
I
On 9/9/12 8:43 PM, John Levine wrote:
Let's say I write to the IESG and say this:
Due to a late night editing error, draft-foo-bar-42 which I
submitted yesterday contains several paragraphs of company
confidential information which you can easily see are irrelevant to
the
Let's say I write to the IESG and say this:
Due to a late night editing error, draft-foo-bar-42 which I
submitted yesterday contains several paragraphs of company
confidential information which you can easily see are irrelevant to
the draft. My boss wants it taken down pronto, even
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:26:29AM -0700, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
No, the response is that we refer you to our policy. As an open
organization we do not remove information once posted, except under
extraordinary circumstances.
Exactly. This sort of thing is wh a policy is
Let's say I write to the IESG and say this:
Due to a late night editing error, draft-foo-bar-42 which I
submitted yesterday contains several paragraphs of company
confidential information which you can easily see are irrelevant to
the draft. My boss wants it taken down pronto, even
On 9/10/2012 8:24 AM, David Borman wrote:
...
The original reason for expiring drafts, along with giving them long,
complicated names that includes the word draft, was to keep them
from being referenced as if they were standards, based on experience
gathered from the short lived IDEA document
1 - 100 of 184 matches
Mail list logo
