[104301] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [NANOG] OSPF minutia, and, technote publication venues
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Vixie)
Mon May 5 15:43:51 2008
From: Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 05 May 2008 17:59:20 GMT."
<20080505175920.13e015b9@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 19:43:29 +0000
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> ...
> A web site like arxiv is good for some stuff. But -- should there be a
> link from nanog.org to operational content? Should nanog.org have
> its own archive? Should there be a peer review process? If not, what
> should the criteria be for an "official" note of the paper?
>
> --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
i wouldn't want to see a full academia-style peer review process, since that
problem is pretty well solved elsewhere, and we're not having that problem.
but a nanog-style peer review process, where the nanog-pc acts as the judge
of how a technote was received by the mailing list, might work. such that if
nanog-pc puts their stamp of approval on it, the connotation would be "more
than one set of eyes has been laid on this, and it's not totally worthless."
i say nanog-like because it's a new trail to blaze based on nanog's culture
which, while often hard to cope with, has some innovative, genuine strengths.
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
