[rfc-i] [irtf-discuss] RFCs accepted journal articles
nico at cryptonector.com
Fri May 3 14:42:54 PDT 2013
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
> On 5/3/2013 1:50 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
>> The IETF process itself can lead to non-publishing. How many more
>> RFCs are there than expired I-Ds?
> Expired can mean abandoned for various reasons (lack of resources, etc.),
> not just rejected from publication.
> The key metric is how many IDs were rejected after being submitted for
That's a misleading metric. The number of such rejections is probably
in the single digits. Abandonment of I-Ds is often a result of lack
of interest because the proposed RFC was crap, or there's no interest
in the technology in question, but there's no way to measure that --
at best you could do some sampling and make your own [often
subjective] determination of why an I-D was abandoned, something that
requires a lot of effort.
An I-D that reaches WGLC or IETF LC is one that has reached consensus
to get pretty down far on the road to publication, so any problems
with it will be fixed rather than result in abandonment.
RFC publication rejection is informal, and highly social. But it does
happen, and plenty.
More information about the rfc-interest