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

--On Monday, June 22, 2026 04:42 -0700 S Moonesamy
<[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

I have noticed that, but assumed that, if any remedy was possible, it
would start by bringing this up at the plenary.

I share most of SM's other concerns below.

    john
 
> 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/cfa5
> 474b-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_OHkwBjtr7gj3KV7ZYs1p35
> lAQ/
> 2. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-071517
> 3. I would exclude spelling-checking and grammar corrections.
>