Re: Dealing with LLMs in IETF discussions draft

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert, Vittorio,
At 09:16 AM 31-07-2026, Robert Sparks wrote:
>A stray thought that I wanted to capture and here seems maybe a good 
>place to insert it.
>
>"Voice" in IETF email correspondence is a thing. We learn to read 
>each other's messages (like the very terse two above) in the "voice" 
>of the sender. It's part of why AI generated or restated content 
>sticks out. That idea is scattered through the draft, but not 
>explicitly mentioned.
>
>Perhaps at least the risks discussion should more deeply explore the 
>consequences in the quality of interaction when the original 
>contributor's  "voice" is being lost.

I'd say Yes to the above.  A few participants are "recognizable" 
through their writing style.  Interactions/discussions would look 
rehearsed or bland if it wasn't for that.  AI-generated messages tend 
to be boring.  They do not invite a reader to spend time on.  The 
arguments in those messages might be persuasive to an occasional reader.

I agree with Vittorio Bertola's comment about 
transparency.  Disclosing whether an AI was used to generate a 
message might be useful while AI is something new.  I might not reply 
to those messages once they becomes commonplace.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy