Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Peter,
At 11:07 AM 11-07-2018, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>s/engineers/technologists/ ;-)

:-)

>Indeed. We could ask them what their goals were in doing so and what the
>results of RFC publication were for them.

Yes.

>Publishing an RFC is different from publishing a paper in an academic
>journal, so applying the same criteria might not be appropriate. As far
>as I can see we're not actively catering to an academic audience (either
>as authors or readers).

RFCs from the IETF Submissions Stream are relatively closer to the 
industry in comparison with an academic journal.

>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).

The level of review is not apparent to the external reader.  The 
breadth of review is subsumed in what the IETF describes as 
"consensus"; other Streams use a different "measure".  The external 
reader is not interested in the review process.  One of the intrinsic 
property of a RFC is availability.  Another property, if I can 
describe it as such, is that a RFC may be viewed as authoritative.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy