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 [EMAIL PROTECTED], which
> is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed.
> Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand.
--
Henning Schulzrinne http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs
