[rfc-i] RFCs accepted journal articles

Larry Masinter masinter at adobe.com
Tue May 7 08:32:22 PDT 2013


> In any event, is there some compelling reason that we shouldn't even ask
> them to include RFCs?

Yes, there is.

I think there is too strong a  temptation already to publish RFCs for vanity reasons  rather than good-standards reasons (that the community needs the RFC and that it does a good job of specifying something that is useful to specify).

The IETF would be better off actively promoting the meme that RFCs aren't peer reviewed by pointing to the April 1 RFC series.

Larry
--
(proud author of RFC 2324, which was only reviewed by a handful before publication).


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org [mailto:rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-
> editor.org] On Behalf Of John R Levine
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 6:48 AM
> To: Joe Touch
> Cc: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org; rse at rfc-editor.org
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] RFCs accepted journal articles
> 
> > Xplore is a content delivery service, not an index. They use the common pub
> industry indices.
> 
> This must be a different Xplore than the one the rest of us use, which has
> extensive search features by author, publication, date, keyword, and so
> forth.
> 
> In any event, is there some compelling reason that we shouldn't even ask
> them to include RFCs?
> 
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list