[rfc-i] [irtf-discuss] RFCs accepted journal articles

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Thu May 2 21:02:33 PDT 2013



On May 2, 2013, at 8:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 03/05/2013 12:31, Joe Touch wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> peer-review process.
> 
> Joe, I don't know where you get that from.

I gave the URL. 

> The ISE review is a peer review
> with the option of anonymity for the reviewer and feedback to the authors
> or to the RSE only.
> 
> This is covered in the CCR article, and anyone trying to justify the
> academic credentials of the RFC series is welcome to cite the CCR
> article; that's why we wrote it.
> http://www.sigcomm.org/sites/default/files/ccr/papers/2010/January/1672308-1672315.pdf
> 
>   Brian

RFC Editor website vs CCR article.  

Joe


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list