Re: Dealing with LLMs in IETF discussions draft

Hi George,
At 08:54 PM 04-08-2026, George Michaelson wrote:
>I didn't post this to achieve some mythical strawman slam-dunk 
>outcome. I think it says things about what legislature thinks about 
>AI, and what kinds of things we might want to think about, using AI. 
>Not thinking about it is also not in my goal set of course: I think 
>we should have a conscious documented path here.

There is an IETF 119 meeting report at 
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.13301  I compared the minutes for the 
first working group listed (it's on the Page 18) with the one which 
is meant to be part of meeting proceedings: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-116-6lo/  The meeting report 
has the following:

   "The meeting was attended by 22 participants, representing key institutions
    such as Apple, Cisco, Huawei Technologies, and ETRI. Notable attendees
    included ..."

That is somewhat different from what is stated in the meeting proceedings.

I agree with what you wrote about thinking about using AI.  The 
technology challenges the traditional assumptions which the 
organization relied on over the years.  The topic may be within the 
scope of the Internet Architecture Board, depending on how one views its role.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy