Re: Dealing with LLMs in IETF discussions draft

How about guidelines for readers/participants and for WG chairs when they believe AI is being used to generate text in counterproductive ways? That seems like where the rubber meets the road.

Because the IETF takes all comers, I don’t think we can stop AI postings at the source. It’s how we respond to postings where something gets done.

+1 to comments from Toerless

LL


> On Aug 6, 2026, at 3:39 AM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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/
>