Re: Dealing with LLMs in IETF discussions draft

Hiya,

We just pushed a -01 version of the draft [1] that lists
(most of) the arguments raised on the list as that may be
a more useful starting point for a discussion on a new
list. (Hi there IESG, any progress on reacting to that
ask?)

Cheers,
S.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fengfar-led/



On 31/07/2026 02:20, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.)
> 
> 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.
> 
> Meanwhile, we'd be v. interested in any comments here or
> on the github repo [2].
> 
> And of course, this is a v. rough thing, not intended to
> be prescriptive or authoritative, so have at it:-)
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fengfar-led/
> [2] https://github.com/sftcd/led/
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

wnsEABYIACMWIQQwbnhHy1kPJkWsM6fk2On5l6gz3QUCanRkXgUDAAAAAAAKCRDk2On5l6gz3flr
AQCBlKRn0WLAhpVZD79NOYijBi0Yus3sJ15DXhrkesKkBgD8CpPJ628KnJKKJ9l6edffTpxtCAHO
qvSR7QjF1gJQ3gI=
=RRXX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----