IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 08 April 2026 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 D6441D82EFDF for <gendispatch@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2026 10:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1775668172; bh=ZyxSePpHnH3LUiXRO57SqNtXbdUb0hJuiFIW2ByY7OM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=O/uHdp9pbm0k8R25WDOZ7pDFqljh9ujD+4ip9CTyjNKwK3+RpG1q0qrWP4LyyziZE RVPxm56GfnKfDX+CVTKBjCnUmR+uGln1X1WS9c/Fk2EGf3z/CF/vIagEMhtKmik68a FrwyJ6ISx6G9+c+Qnoi/ujcBHx5gO+JVqBimP9W0=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.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 Lf6RsPgK-Q96 for <gendispatch@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2026 10:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DC22D82EE7C for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2026 10:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.117.86.69]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 638H8b8t023384 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 8 Apr 2026 10:08:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1775668129; x=1775754529; i=@elandsys.com; bh=ZyxSePpHnH3LUiXRO57SqNtXbdUb0hJuiFIW2ByY7OM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=cJbUD25Bhcep46QDF3CT+4DfSGCSj3+sko7pbeNKklXCsLurfr9/AKWkv5Hkpk5Qt VeJQqDWg9ulq2O1oc0/Sx9Sv+luN/Lnu6rhFh2/VGX0SmxSW1cdJbqqUb3TDufBdmT o58Tz2geUZFSv1F1dxRDFl6CsrPBSZai3HUY2a9w=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20260408100213.136f0e10@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2026 10:08:16 -0700
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, gendispatch@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <0b3ed81d-5a28-4b11-b8bd-f301b87d895d@joelhalpern.com>
References: <dcae2c01-5579-40b9-a098-996a4e6f59df@app.fastmail.com> <CABcZeBMK02kkU50BrqB5mH4SxZiTTOCg_SB_CKyC3L-vZdRppw@mail.gmail.com> <9B719B13-B677-4E69-B78F-5259D8CE99C3@mnot.net> <adaAzDZVxw0WBlEs@ubby> <0b3ed81d-5a28-4b11-b8bd-f301b87d895d@joelhalpern.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Message-ID-Hash: IS27NEVSFGZKLZ3A6ZB6MYZWAZ6OEEYF
X-Message-ID-Hash: IS27NEVSFGZKLZ3A6ZB6MYZWAZ6OEEYF
X-MailFrom: sm@elandsys.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
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/ql9eqbNmGNfXO6Stf8tmz4oRxzY>
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>

Hi Joel.
At 09:51 AM 08-04-2026, Joel Halpern wrote:
>The problem I see not very far down the road is that this could 
>easily become a deluge of comments on many documents.  I can even 
>imagine that the human beings behind the LLM think they are helping 
>us by pointing out flaws.  But they can easily overwhelm the ability 
>of the document editor to respond.  I don't know that policy will 
>help here.  I am not at all sure what the right answer is, as if the 
>comments are accurate then we should indeed address them.   It seems 
>to me that this, even more than a flood of I-Ds, could represent a 
>significant problem for our process.

Some else raised that point: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/eYfWSREakHkXXVML56thoCM3ypU

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

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