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

>  A possible fix to ask the "Contributor" to explicitly
> state whether "AI" was used to generate text [3] when he/she
> submits a draft.

FYI: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-ethics-05.html

To be clear, this draft is about the RFC series as a whole, not about the IETF process or I-Ds as such, and is discussed on the RSWG list which is not an IETF list. The AI issue potentially affects all RFC streams.

Regards/Ngā mihi
    Brian Carpenter

On 23-Jun-26 02:02, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> 
> --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.
>>
> 
>