[ai-control] Re: -04 drafts for evaluation

[Leonard Rosenthol <[e-mail]>]

Hey Farz….

I have answered this question for multiple times - in fact, I think at every single F2F meeting (and probably in email as well).

>why do we need an "all" or a "tdm" or an "automated processing" category when the bot can be blocked anyway at robots.txt level should they want to allow or block it?

Because this vocabulary is not just about bots and robots.txt​.  As discussed in a related thread, there are many other attachment methods that are waiting on this work - including IETF’s own HTML attachment method - that have nothing to do with bots or robots.

Leonard

From: Farzaneh Badiei <[e-mail]>
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 at 12:50 PM
To: Paul Keller <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: [ai-control] Re: -04 drafts for evaluation


EXTERNAL: Use caution when clicking on links or opening attachments.


Paul,

If Foundation Model Production replaces AI training and Generative AI training why not just use those terms? And in my opinion (and I have been trying to educate myself on this AI terms for the past two years so bear with me) Model Production is the stage after training and production  means producing something. So in a way I think Foundation Model Production is dealing with after training but in our case it includes both production and training. Which makes it broader.

I have another question, which we have raised a number of times so I apologize if you answered already: why do we need an "all" or a "tdm" or an "automated processing" category when the bot can be blocked anyway at robots.txt level should they want to allow or block it? I think it's important to have a clear cut answer. Krishna has thankfully raised the issue here again and he explains it better than me: https://github.com/ietf-wg-aipref/drafts/issues/178


I am working on my other comments and will send it to the list.


On Sun, Nov 2, 2025 at 12:23 PM Paul Keller <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Dear all,

I also have a question of understanding.

@Farz – in your last message you wrote:

> On 1 Nov 2025, at 21:13, Farzaneh Badiei <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> I have to think really hard about  replacing training generative AI with the Foundational Model Production category. Now that we have that change, then automated processing definition has become even more problematic. Too broad, it includes everything.

This echoes something Jo wrote earlier in this thread:

> On 30 Oct 2025, at 23:20, Jo Levy <jlevy=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> Moreover, the change to the term "Foundation Model" instead of AI Training, makes it even more apparent that a top level category is not needed.


Could either of you help me understand why you think this is the case? I’m trying to follow the reasoning, but I’m not sure I do. In my reading, the new “Foundation Model Production” category simply replaces the previous “AI training” and “Generative AI training” categories. I don’t see how that change affects the rationale for having (or not having) a top-level category. But maybe I am missing something here?

Best, Paul

--
ai-control mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>