[rfc-i] independent submissions to RFC Editor

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Apr 25 11:42:26 PDT 2005


Hi Bob,

thanks for the feedback!

Bob Braden wrote:
>   *> > It is also true that there is an unfortunate tendency of independent
>   *> > submissions to raise substantial issues of conflict with the standards
>   *> > process (for some members of the IESG, nearly EVERYTHING conflicts with
>   *> > the standards process), and also for independent submissions to be of
>   *> > below-acceptable editorial quality, since they have not been ground
>   *> > down in a working group.  (I am sure neither is true for YOUR document,
>   *> > ;-), but some that precede yours in the queue are certainly guilty.)
>   *> 
>   *> Out of curiosity: has any progress been made on this issue? Can any 
>   *> progress be expected in the near future?
> 
> Julian,
> 
> I am not sure which issue you mean -- the overload of the RFC Editor,
> the problem of conflicts with the standards process, or the sub-standard
> quality of many independent submissions.

Oh well. I managed to quote the wrong section. Sorry. What I *meant* to 
quote was...:

> The fact is that higher-priority issues (like getting paid by ISOC ;-))
> and expediting the publication of RFCs already in the editorial queue has
> brought the effective rate of consideration of independent submisssions
> to zero.  We hope that in the coming months this situation will improve.

(<http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2005-January/000232.html>)

This was in January. I started to monitor progress end of February, and 
as of yesterday, my submission moved up in the queue by exactly one 
place. So it seemed to be reasonable to ask whether some progress has 
been made or is expected in the near future.

Funny enough, *three* more entries have been processed as of today, 
which is good.

> We are making progress on reviewing independent submissions, with the
> considerable help of the RFC Editorial Board and a few other fine
> citizens who have produced reviews for us.  We are seeing an increasing
> number of almost-standards documents -- legitimate, serious technical
> specs that are not in the IETF because there is not currently a working
> group in the area, or the existing working group has too narrow a charter
> to consider them.  As a result, they come to the RFC Editor without blame
> for an end-run, but OTOH they have not received the level of editorial
> review that a working group (ideally) provides.  We are trying to either
> pass these to the relevant AD or to find a serious external reviewer
> for each.

I appreciate the work that's being done. Maybe the RFC Editor should 
actually ask for reviewers over here. Wouldn't it even make sense to 
kindly ask the author of the submissions to review somebody else's 
document in return?

On the other hand, does it make sense for an author to nominate 
potential reviewers for his/her own document?

> I can't say there has been much progress on sub-standard submissions. :-((

That's fine. Is there any way an author can find out about which 
category the RFC Editor feels the document belongs to?

> ...

Best regards, Julian



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list