Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com>
wrote:

> Hi SM!
>
> On 7/11/18 11:38 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> > At 09:24 AM 11-07-2018, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >> We as a community seem to be confused about what level of "peer review"
> >> we think is important, appropriate, necessary, or sufficient. We're
> >> engineers, not academics, so comparing our publications to academic
> >> journals might not be relevant.
> >
> > Do IETF participants need a license [1] in the practice of engineering?
>
> s/engineers/technologists/ ;-)
>
> > There are academics who have authored RFCs in some of the Streams.
>
> Indeed. We could ask them what their goals were in doing so and what the
> results of RFC publication were for them.
>
> > There is an IAB RFC about citability of for scholarly publications.  Why
> > would academic journals not be relevant?
>
> Publishing an RFC is different from publishing a paper in an academic
> journal, so applying the same criteria might not be appropriate.

Indeed. For instance, novelty is one of the first questions one asks about
a scientific
paper. And yet here at IETF we routinely publish documents with no new
scientific
content at all. Indeed, one might argue that it's better if they don't
because you have
more confidence it will work

-Ekr

As far
> as I can see we're not actively catering to an academic audience (either
> as authors or readers).
>
> > There has to be some level of review or else there wouldn't be any
> > quality control.  I agree that there is some confusion on the level of
> > review which is required.
>
> And different levels or kinds of review across the different streams.
> This returns to the question of audiences for the streams. Vendors and
> operators seem to differ quite a bit from researchers and academics
> (naturally there is always overlap).
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rfcplusplus mailing list
> Rfcplusplus@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus
>
>