Re: Reqest to the IESG re I-D posting (FWD : I-D Action: draft-g00se-honk-00.txt

Hi John,

[Cc IESG]

There was a request [1] on 26 April to the IESG, Secretariat support 
team, and relevant list moderators.  I could not find any reply to the request.

There was a time when I could read the documents announced by "I-D 
announce" without giving a second thought.  Since over a month, I 
have to verify whether those I-Ds are
AI-generated "Contributions".  It's not any better for the seemingly 
technical content in emails from IETF mailing lists.

I posted the following to another mailing list over a week ago: 
https://www.science.org/cms/10.1126/science.357.6351.541/asset/cfa5474b-648b-496e-950c-32001c147a69/assets/graphic/357_541_f1.jpeg 
The numbers are from the pre-AI era.  It looks like submitting 
AI-generated "Contributions" is a rewarding effort.

Paper mill papers have been discussed [1] outside the IETF 
Stream.  One of the conclusions was that "these types of papers have 
also been observed to contain fabricated and manipulated data".

The existing policies already cover those new types of "IETF 
Contributions".  The authors of those "Contributions" could plead 
ignorance given that "AI" is not explicitly mentioned in those 
policies.  A possible fix to ask the "Contributor" to explicitly 
state whether "AI" was used to generate text [3] when he/she submits a draft.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/v_OHkwBjtr7gj3KV7ZYs1p35lAQ/
2. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-071517
3. I would exclude spelling-checking and grammar corrections.