Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor

"RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel)" <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 11 July 2018 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01F67130F49 for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wk2T3A51uz1T for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A38C130E24 for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E9B31D1B89; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GmBD4-UJ-HhB; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B4BC1D1B86; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 84.51.152.6 (SquirrelMail authenticated user rfcpise) by www.amsl.com with HTTP; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:19:28 -0700
Message-ID: <baa4f311ebe6f334ffd64b49f73a2231.squirrel@www.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <3e8272be-50fb-113b-fd6f-a5850d668472@mozilla.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBVC82qy0hbUbQKm=OsFPsaJUPndtVaxd782au6Qy0w6Q@mail.gmail.com> <a4b50286-5c54-e6cf-9087-7171030b7fca@juniper.net> <C9EBFF44-DB93-45E4-954D-2AC5E2F47D03@gmail.com> <20180710192810.GQ20282@mx4.yitter.info> <0e127473-902a-2421-6b5d-73f9e7f83286@juniper.net> <20180710204512.GT20282@mx4.yitter.info> <af1d2bc2-2027-0a4b-856a-35b35c386624@gmail.com> <3e8272be-50fb-113b-fd6f-a5850d668472@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:19:28 -0700
From: "RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel)" <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, rfcplusplus@ietf.org
Reply-To: rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfcplusplus/apQvMr1O0C6phsyBH5_EwZNgPNo>
Subject: Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor
X-BeenThere: rfcplusplus@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: For discussion of the RFC++ BoF proposal and related ideas <rfcplusplus.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rfcplusplus>, <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfcplusplus/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfcplusplus@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus>, <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:19:35 -0000

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> In what sense are Independent Stream documents peer reviewed?
>
> At a higher level, is there a good definition of "peer review" so that
> we can understand how documents from the various streams map to that
> definition?

Peter, "what is a peer and what constitutes a peer review?" are questions
that have bothered me for a while even for tier one journals. I have
received some frankly appalling journal reviews over the years (and I say
that not just because I have disagreed with them) where the reviewers have
clearly not understood the fundamentals of the material. I suspect we have
all read journal article where we have wondered about the source of the
substance being smoked.

So you might be asking: what review is performed on the Independent
Submissions stream? There is no secret about that, so here is a summary in
no particular order:

- The ISE reviews. This might not be a subject matter expert review as the
ISE is a generalist with some areas of detailed knowledge. The review is
often more for consistency and readability.

- The ISE commissions two or three reviews from persons suggested by the
authors but who are not directly involved in the work. It is evident to
the ISE from these reviews whether the reviewer has sufficient subject
knowledge to be classed as a peer. Note that failure to get sufficient
reviews in this class is gating on publication - if even the authors can't
find people to review their work then it really is of limited interest.

- The ISE requests reviews from other experts in the IETF community. These
are often drawn from the ISEB (names available on the web), but may be
people that the ISE can see have a close interest in the subject matter.
(If you would like to be more involved in this sort of review then I will
bite your hand off!)

- The RFC 5742 review by the IESG often draws review comments, although
the IESG is not required or expected to provide such a review.

Cheers,
Adrian

PS. Some I-Ds pass through WG and IETF last call with no comments at all
(possibly suggesting no one is reviewing them) and get relatively light
review in the IESG. Saying that is not an attack - just a comparison.


-- 
Adrian Farrel (ISE),
rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org