[rfc-i] [irtf-discuss] RFCs accepted journal articles
touch at isi.edu
Thu May 2 17:31:16 PDT 2013
On 5/2/2013 5:11 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> IETF-stream and IRTF-streams are often considered peer-reviewed.
>> Other streams may or may not be considered peer-reviewed (I would not consider IAB documents as such), but independent submissions are generally not (they only purpose of the one review they get is to make sure they're on-topic and not bogus).
> There are two review steps for the independent submissions, the ISR
> and the IESG review. I was under the impression that while the latter is
> just about non-conflict with the IETF process, the former would have
> looked at content and worthwhileness to publish. But I've never been a
> part of the review board, so I don't really know…
The information is here: http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html
ISR checks to make sure a doc is non-bogus and relevant to be an RFC.
IESG is a check on whether the doc should be part of the IETF process,
or is somehow dangerous to the Internet in content.
But neither is a true content quality review as would be expected of a
> Anyway, not trying to deflect your main point but just wondering about this one detail.
> Also, IAB does publish documents with a comment period, but it is
> true that they are not obliged to take feedback into account, so in
> theory they are not peer reviewed while in practice they often are.
Any of us can solicit feedback and use that to make our documents better.
The IAB as a group decides what to publish and whether to incorporate
comments, according to RFC 4845. That's self-publication, not peer review.
More information about the rfc-interest