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

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri May 3 13:09:01 PDT 2013

One final comment at the end...

On 03/05/2013 17:52, Joe Touch wrote:
> 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. 

In that case the web pages miss out an important fact: the ISE sometimes says "No".


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list