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

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Thu May 2 22:52:38 PDT 2013

On May 2, 2013, at 10:35 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>    Brian

The web pages imply that everything in scope will be published, albeit if revised. Peer review would include peer rejection for quality too. 


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list