[rfc-i] RFCs accepted journal articles

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue May 7 13:22:02 PDT 2013


On 08/05/2013 03:32, Larry Masinter wrote:
>> 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)

IMHO that's an orthogonal problem. On *this* topic, there is a significant
disincentive for active researchers to contribute material to RFCs rather than
to journal articles or conference papers. This isn't a matter of vanity - the
latter two are generally much more valuable for a researcher's career progress
and research funding.

Now you could argue that we don't want any stinkin' academic input to our
standards track or informational documents, but I think that would be
short-sighted.

Vanity RFCs seem to be a problem in industry, not in academia, precisely
because RFCs are valued in industry more than in academia.

> 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).

But the aforesaid academic articles are also only reviewed by two or three
people. I'd say, in all seriousness, that April 1 RFCs are reviewed just as
carefully as the typical computer science conference paper.

    Brian

> 
>> -----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
> _______________________________________________
> 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