[rfc-i] RFC Editor Structure

Bob Braden braden at ISI.EDU
Thu Jun 5 11:38:11 PDT 2008


 
  *> 
  *> 2. Also re the Independent Stream: "...no changes to the Editorial
  *> Board are being proposed." Let's discuss that. I don't like the
  *> current degree of secrecy around the way the EB reviews independent
  *> submissions.

Brian,

RFC 4846 (July 2007, Klensin & tHaler) established the rules for
handling reviews of independent submissions.  In general, the RFC
Editor has been attempting to follow that document since it was
published.

Originally, the RFC Editor used the academic model, in which reviews
are (of course) shared with the author but not made public.  RFC 4846
generally favors posting of reviews, although in fact it does not
absolutely require it; see section 7.1.  In any case, the RFC Editor
intends to follow the general thrust of 4846 by posting reviews on our
web site, and we began the process of making that happen.
Unfortunately, higher priority issues intervened, and we never got back
to complete the task.  Thanks for your comment, and we will try to
remove the veil of "secrecy" ASAP.

Bob Braden


     Especially if we end up spending IASA money explicitly
  *> for this stream, I'd like to see all EB reviews being made public.
  *> People who want to publish via confidential peer review have lots
  *> of other places to try.



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list