[rfc-i] Overview document available

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Sat Nov 6 20:04:19 PDT 2010

On 11/6/2010 6:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2010-11-07 03:11, SM wrote:
> ...
>>    "The [RFC Editor] stream should be re-instituted to distinguish RFC
>> Editor-related
>>     policy, structure, and process documents from other RFCs."
>> Is there a reason why this cannot be done through the Independent
>> Submissions Stream?
> Because independent submissions are supposed to be peer-reviewed
> technical submissions...

Peer review is misleading, IMO.

The IS review process is more of a sanity and end-run check, rather than 
the kind of review that happens when a paper is submitted for a journal 
or conference. The IS review process requires only one such review 
(presumably for that reason), rather than the 2-3 typically required as 
a minimum for most "peer review" publications.

Let's please not call this "peer review". It's a threshold check.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list