[rfc-i] RFCs for vanity reasons (was: RFCs accepted journal articles)

SM sm at resistor.net
Tue May 7 15:50:37 PDT 2013


Hi Larry,

[Cc trimmed to mailing list only]

At 08:32 07-05-2013, Larry Masinter wrote:
>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.

The author takes all the credit for the RFC.  Some RFCs are published 
for vanity reasons.  Some RFCs are published for I don't know what reason. :-)

I think that "we" might wish to distinguish between RFCs from the 
IETF Stream and the other streams.  The former are produced by a 
standards determining organization.  The others could be seen as 
documentation, criticism, etc.  When you see a long list of authors 
or controversies because of acknowledgements there may be a degree of 
vanity.  There are also other reasons; e.g. how work is measured.

It is nearly impossible to get agreement on changes which are 
proposed.  Is the system sustainable in the long run?  Time will tell.

Regards,
-sm 



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list