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 -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
