Keith Moore wrote:
These days the value in the RFC series is not that it is a central
repository for everything having to do with Internet protocols
(as if such a repository were even feasible!) but that documents
in the series are likely to be relevant and of reasonable quality.
Indeed, were it not for the efforts of the RFC Editor and IESG to
maintain a high quality document series, folks wouldn't be nearly
so interested in having their documents published as RFCs.
There are plenty of publication venues available for network protocols.
Even those without access to a local tech report service can avail
themselves of, say, www.arXive.org, where entries are cataloged and
announced to interested parties. There are about 50,000
networking-related papers in my network bibliography
(http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/netbib) and it is far from complete,
containing mostly journal and peer-reviewed conference articles (as well
as RFCs). [That said, additions are much appreciated.] Should everyone
of them be an RFC? Why? Every journal and conference worth
reading/attending has an editorial board or technical program committee.
The review process for these typically takes from six months to a year
or more, with rejection ratios of 70 to 90% not uncommon. Compared to
that, the threshold and review for informational RFCs is pretty low (too
low, if you like).
Keith
-
This message was passed through ietf+censored(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no, which
is a sublist of ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_) Not all messages are passed.
Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand.
--
Henning Schulzrinne http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs