IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Gendispatch] Re: A policy for disclosing use of AI in IETF documents and processes?

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 08 April 2026 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: gendispatch@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A809D82B427 for <gendispatch@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2026 09:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1775665962; bh=BjZzyNN8NYghH7yJ8AixGMBVpUMleXnmB4zmFmJsR3k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=peZN0PQ1fM1UXaNWuc+6evYsuItM1f3sCRKxXn3vWqZs1blkHzgV3tOE9jnjZc5AJ IlGzaSvkcY4nR4u/S25WLRawsTxh63Eqq+zVN/yH+mQb2UddqeYL8s5E3Evv5T/FN5 1l/kHxAF2GD508BbRS4QflQh8vglTQxCac7gqXLU=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lfraEU4uDLZe for <gendispatch@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2026 09:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crocodile.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (crocodile.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.45]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5388D82B41F for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2026 09:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E758A2B7C; Wed, 08 Apr 2026 16:32:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a261.dreamhost.com (100-121-211-194.trex-nlb.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.121.211.194]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B12388A2D83; Wed, 08 Apr 2026 16:32:34 +0000 (UTC)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=mailchannels.net; s=arc-2022; cv=none; t=1775665954; b=WU3nrlHagms8URNocY6nOgI3DWqNGJZ2ms/KVhPOLQqmemdq62ySWoal869Ii76cH1/fF0 QW9MiUdKIgEd/b6Y6Oi5RyW0avK/FI31dnn+KBWe7ClKdElxpDt4M8FNnGfqv5B/TQIN4T /kcm2mqVz8UrFBvndWsslgpwPsx72OvON07ZrRgWRmijVALhaZ7kr2iBxWjTZSLwpP51bT xhjHQPeqs3xBKXzTU6wAp/lcFFroNkab9X5LSkKSPDnpS0SR+aCYjG1Pxs7Bmqff0YQi/a AfKwa47vMbw5BDkvVu2kbkcFwo/hRI1maHGpsRhPzYRoqm8OFlC1z0U2yJd+OQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailchannels.net; s=arc-2022; t=1775665954; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=0SG7Sp4YgRP9E7h4sA6BRdUzGQR5h1N2voyMBIFFbuU=; b=D1H4RmhwRu7IzmhDLQdZ2FreGyPdQlIL02E8VJjv7jtHJcM5lG9u48Kcj9HaaO59gZfPbL qjwBgbTSLC6sCx3XEDquRUX3mW5xTHeDaT4V9bJjPyeFgFJDlnhY7pCI2ENOrEL4PB4idR sGBLjEQtaQmbj1UF4hOEdAuvNudAqVvKd7AolZhfJ1+z5q35tv5uLLnyJgl8JCDW5oOzTG SJLdGVzoyMdejaahJYaFPwkDFqvNR4Z5s5h5kj5Hbii0PBpc9YwTlw+qG4ZdCUK0Y2amRs DahpWn969pSAafc73YYGvchnFlOuq7UGvz10dy/71Ln29m48h94I1ParRwCQpw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; rspamd-7d86dcc447-zffl8; auth=pass smtp.auth=dreamhost smtp.mailfrom=nico@cryptonector.com
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Daffy-Little: 6ca37970059cc141_1775665954999_2034713799
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1775665954999:1608465249
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1775665954999
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a261.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) by 100.121.211.194 (trex/7.1.5); Wed, 08 Apr 2026 16:32:34 +0000
Received: from ubby (unknown [75.81.95.64]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a261.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4frTB94XNDzypk; Wed, 8 Apr 2026 09:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; s=dreamhost; t=1775665954; bh=0SG7Sp4YgRP9E7h4sA6BRdUzGQR5h1N2voyMBIFFbuU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Content-Type; b=ag7+qjqvr9sYxX9Kk7DqxIVFgAVw6DhR75seDkaVh+Lk/yqh9FsqoeIWtOUTAu2kz 3/ErTPBcjsutai9Qef0gciZUoKhxCYXTlbbvgI4kwPtNrscrOvlzUIxO+OufherzMF lG/2HTKMFqgqYsLiTTz+YeVj/NrLzY6cJrgN3XYikQucfC6KcLMssBQ0XSVrkaRdEM MvTEih0trzT7liF2wTbNirJ3ynZaUKLXTZuy3GXYR+KvPlQnNW+MRiciLqQ4lDCudF iOiLSdl/nRDSPOFZbF0AQs3r0cfyMlWxYc8qSo3lAFVT7pOhT14rMXjsaqVqOQHyo6 NwM72sfTiA8/w==
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2026 11:32:31 -0500
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Message-ID: <adaDHzuN8eswYGjF@ubby>
References: <dcae2c01-5579-40b9-a098-996a4e6f59df@app.fastmail.com> <CABcZeBMK02kkU50BrqB5mH4SxZiTTOCg_SB_CKyC3L-vZdRppw@mail.gmail.com> <adZ/HCTxnBZXWyux@ubby> <CAMm+LwgmbMJssDQ7NxQv7k9W+tjBZeXHkAFJTxCvVMf2Qiy-oA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwgmbMJssDQ7NxQv7k9W+tjBZeXHkAFJTxCvVMf2Qiy-oA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID-Hash: L7V3ZGBW7ZAXDRUYBEO6ORRDJSLQOIUQ
X-Message-ID-Hash: L7V3ZGBW7ZAXDRUYBEO6ORRDJSLQOIUQ
X-MailFrom: nico@cryptonector.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Lucas Pardue <lucas@lucaspardue.com>, gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Gendispatch] Re: A policy for disclosing use of AI in IETF documents and processes?
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/PzRWP2m5KL42dQHYQdQ2MVCsuYA>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:gendispatch-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gendispatch-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gendispatch-leave@ietf.org>

On Wed, Apr 08, 2026 at 12:20:41PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> OK, so turning the question on its head.

Feels rhetorical, but let me try.

> If vibe coding is so great, it should be able to turn a well defined
> specification into code.

The more constrained the problem space is and the better TDD the LLM can
engage in, the better the results.  I find that having a reference
implementation to test against is one of the best ways to constrain an
LLM and make it produce better code.

> So....
> 
> <ducks>

I think you're proposing that vibe coding is bad and that vibing specs
from code will be equally bad.  We'll certainly see: a) bad code, b) bad
specs.  Disclosure policies won't make (b) go away anymore than they
make (a) go away, bringing us back to:

    reputational risk is the right tool for this job

Nico
--

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status