Re: Dealing with LLMs in IETF discussions draft

My top-of-mind reaction: people are responsible for what they post.

If someone is using AI well and their posts are good, great! If not, =
we=E2=80=99ll learn that and pay less attention to them.

An important guideline: you are responsible for what you post.

If you blast out lots of AI-originated text that you haven=E2=80=99t =
reviewed thoroughly and maybe don=E2=80=99t even understand, your =
credibility in the IETF is going to decline. At some level, not =
understanding what you post even becomes a basis for moderators =
prohibiting posts from you.

LL


> On Jul 30, 2026, at 6:20=E2=80=AFPM, Stephen Farrell =
<[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> Hi all,
>=20
> Myself and Chong Feng have posted an I-D [1] that (from two
> pretty different perspectives) aims to progress discussion
> of how we might better handle LLM text in IETF discussions.
>=20
> I think this'd be a fine topic for broad discussion. I do
> not know what would be the correct mailing list for such a
> discussion, but also think it doesn't warrant waiting for
> another round of dispatchery before being discussed. (Nor
> would any dispatch outcome above 'new mailing list' suit.)
>=20
> So, I'd be v. interested in comments on this and/or on it
> being moved to some other mailing list for discussion. If
> no existing list suits, I'd suggest [email protected]
> (which could be contracted to [email protected]:-) as a name
> for a new list, but whatever works is fine.
>=20
> Meanwhile, we'd be v. interested in any comments here or
> on the github repo [2].
>=20
> And of course, this is a v. rough thing, not intended to
> be prescriptive or authoritative, so have at it:-)
>=20
> Cheers,
> S.
>=20
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fengfar-led/
> [2] https://github.com/sftcd/led/
>=20