[rfc-i] RFCs for vanity reasons (was: RFCs accepted journal articles)
sm at resistor.net
Tue May 7 15:50:37 PDT 2013
[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.
More information about the rfc-interest