Re: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>]

On 2008-08-14 19:25, Simon Josefsson wrote:
...
> If removals should be permitted, the reasons for acceptiFrom ietf-bounces at ietf.org  Thu Aug 14 15:03:36 2008
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive at megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E1A3A6B8C;
	Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:03:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E48C03A6BB6
	for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.431
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.168, 
	BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id Sf0We5zdwoIu for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>;
	Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from po-out-1718.google.com (po-out-1718.google.com [72.14.252.153])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9117F3A6BFF
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by po-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id y22so1039484pof.4
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from
	:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references
	:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=p7yAM5s5H6CKQ6aQA8BroXNvjgznhJ2mGnaC/uiLv0E=;
	b=VnjQQLTebNOmR7ANCrF12ZAQxIKJqxlR+C4eCZFtBx8P2VU9FjYKwNQr4C4ItflGmc
	GJ2/CG+cQRK+Dph8iMoBFedQFueTJY5ABUAcsfDVSXGlsv75Vy3I90AjgHMKKs0VMt8N
	z2QdYq2pL6NISg3IaqmryJw/IkoBfB9KUh4tU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc
	:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=w0l3S0blkUVuGReEZfaB5tC+PgR5rfI8mvD0W4/49mRjHmHd5cITvqjYvQPNoAV/RL
	jI1GykucSVCOzHXkD0qLD7C+d0SexaNbO9siRnVL/lThPn1p2mvs26xKdWxn0LHOOtyJ
	Sj08tjcW5I9flp77vQt49ZKjiPke2m/doCngM=
Received: by 10.141.193.1 with SMTP id v1mr1052952rvp.245.1218751376350;
	Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?130.216.38.124? ( [130.216.38.124])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b8sm2454757rvf.4.2008.08.14.15.02.54
	(version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <48A4AB8C.70506 at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:02:52 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org>
Subject: Re: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
References: <004401c8fc95$10571bd0$0201a8c0 at tsg1>	<48A2AEB8.5020200 at alvestrand.no>	<87vdy5425m.fsf_-_ at mocca.josefsson.org>	<48A2C119.7080401 at alvestrand.no>
	<87iqu53zlp.fsf at mocca.josefsson.org>	<48A2CC91.4010309 at alvestrand.no>
	<873al93y2b.fsf at mocca.josefsson.org>	<15A39E507774A7223AB701DC at [192.168.1.110]>	<48A35C52.4020206 at gmail.com>
	<87myjgktw8.fsf at mocca.josefsson.org>	<48A3D3D8.20101 at alvestrand.no>
	<8763q4kqh5.fsf at mocca.josefsson.org>
In-Reply-To: <8763q4kqh5.fsf at mocca.josefsson.org>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>,
	Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>,
	IETF Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org

On 2008-08-14 19:25, Simon Josefsson wrote:
...
> If removals should be permitted, the reasons for accepting a remng a removal
> request should be well established.  I can think of at least two reasons
> that are valid:
> 
> * Exact duplicates
> * Spam
> 
> Beyond this I'm less sure we can get away the liability concern.
> 
> False positives for spam could be a issue, so I'm not even sure the
> second one is OK.

Well, here's a quote from #644, which I had removed:

"is ipv6 the ultimate version of the internet protocol now?
is possible send segments of 256 bytes in the ipv6 protocol?
support microsoft corporation the ipv6 protocol in the microsofts private
networks?
the code of ipv6 is a"

It wasn't spam; it was just drivel. There were others of the same nature,
#555, #577, #578 and possibly others; I don't have full records. But I assure
you that since these removals were all manual, there were no false
positives. I don't think that's a real risk.

    Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


oval
> request should be well established.  I can think of at least two reasons
> that are valid:
> 
> * Exact duplicates
> * Spam
> 
> Beyond this I'm less sure we can get away the liability concern.
> 
> False positives for spam could be a issue, so I'm not even sure the
> second one is OK.

Well, here's a quote from #644, which I had removed:

"is ipv6 the ultimate version of the internet protocol now?
is possible send segments of 256 bytes in the ipv6 protocol?
support microsoft corporation the ipv6 protocol in the microsofts private
networks?
the code of ipv6 is a"

It wasn't spam; it was just drivel. There were others of the same nature,
#555, #577, #578 and possibly others; I don't have full records. But I assure
you that since these removals were all manual, there were no false
positives. I don't think that's a real risk.

    Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf