[rfc-i] [irtf-discuss] RFCs accepted journal articles

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Thu May 2 22:35:19 PDT 2013

On 03/05/2013 16:02, Joe Touch wrote:
> On May 2, 2013, at 8:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 03/05/2013 12:31, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> On 5/2/2013 5:11 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>>>> IETF-stream and IRTF-streams are often considered peer-reviewed.
>>>>> Other streams may or may not be considered peer-reviewed (I would not
>>>>> consider IAB documents as such), but independent submissions are
>>>>> generally not (they only purpose of the one review they get is to
>>>>> make sure they're on-topic and not bogus).
>>>> There are two review steps for the independent submissions, the ISR
>>>> and the IESG review. I was under the impression that while the latter is
>>>> just about non-conflict with the IETF process, the former would have
>>>> looked at content and worthwhileness to publish. But I've never been a
>>>> part of the review board, so I don't really know…
>>> The information is here: http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html
>>> ISR checks to make sure a doc is non-bogus and relevant to be an RFC.
>>> IESG is a check on whether the doc should be part of the IETF process,
>>> or is somehow dangerous to the Internet in content.
>>> But neither is a true content quality review as would be expected of a
>>> peer-review process.
>> Joe, I don't know where you get that from.
> I gave the URL. 
>> The ISE review is a peer review
>> with the option of anonymity for the reviewer and feedback to the authors
>> or to the RSE only.
>> This is covered in the CCR article, and anyone trying to justify the
>> academic credentials of the RFC series is welcome to cite the CCR
>> article; that's why we wrote it.
>> http://www.sigcomm.org/sites/default/files/ccr/papers/2010/January/1672308-1672315.pdf
>>   Brian
> RFC Editor website vs CCR article.  

I'm afraid I don't see the inconsistency.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list