Hi Eliot, I see. I learned that I need to be more careful to state my request to either you or others next time :-)
Sure, I will try to publish these two remaining I2NSF drafts in another IETF WG or academia journal or conference. Thanks for your valuable comments. Best Regards, Paul On Sun, Aug 4, 2024 at 9:01 PM Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) < rfc-...@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > Hi Paul > On 02.08.2024 01:44, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong wrote: > > Eliot, > I thought that the experimental RFC and informational RFC are also IETF > Internet Standard Specifications. > This expression was caused by the lack of my understanding between the > IETF Standard Specifications and IETF RFCs. > > I know that this is a point of confusion for many. Part of my job is to > limit that confusion. > > > My previous statement should be fixed as follows: > > However, the publication of RFCs will let the technologies in these two > documents be widely used by the industry because they are IETF RFCs even > though they are > an Informational RFC and Experimental RFC, respectively. > > > Could you reconsider my submissions considering my misunderstanding? > > What I need is a clear statement as to why you want to publish. Your > initial statement was quite clear, by the way. It was just not what would > allow a document to proceed. > > I should caution you: even if you provide a clear statement that might be > acceptable, I will have to gauge that against the record. Even assuming we > overcome that challenge, the path the publication is rocky. I will be > looking for a reasonable quality specification that either documents or > builds on well deployed work. Also, for experimental documents, I expect > the experiment to have a start, a middle, and an end, much aligning to > draft-bonica-gendispatch-exp. I will need to receive reviews, the > preponderance of which should be favorable. This will be a long haul with > a far from uncertain outcome (I reject most documents). > > RFCs are neither a panacea, however, and you may find other routes more > desirable. As a fellow researcher, may I encourage you to consider other > fora first as you did with other work? I'm thinking of SIGCOMM / HotNets / > USENIX Security / IEEE S&P / NOMS / IFIP Networking, for instance. > > I expect that you could add to the list. > Eliot >
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list -- i2nsf@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to i2nsf-le...@ietf.org
