Re: [NANOG] OSPF minutia, and, technote publication venues

[Paul Vixie <vixie () isc org>]

smb () cs columbia edu ("Steven M. Bellovin") writes:

> > > If not, what should the criteria be for an "official" note of the paper?
> >
> > Perhaps it's an oversimplification, but can't those who wish to publish
> > such information simply deliver their papers at a NANOG meeting (after
> > acceptance by the Program Committee, which acts as a gate), and then
> > the NANOG folks post the documents along with any slides and the VoDs
> > of their presentations, in the usual fashion?
>
> That's certainly one very good answer.  Are there others?
>
>               --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

i think that's a good first tier, but there's still delay and congestion in
that path.  delay, because nanog meetings only happen N times per year, so
an idea may have to wait months before it's widely circulated.  congestion,
because nanog meetings are of fixed duration and there is, and has to be,
competition for the slots, to make the meeting interesting, keep quality high.

as a second tier, if a technote draft could be sent to nanog-pc at any time,
and the readable ones sent to nanog@ (at a maximum of one per week, so there
would still be some quality-control related congestion, and rate limiting),
and if the nanog-pc could then use mailing list feedback to judge whether the
technote deserved to be given a number and put on www.nanog.org somewhere, we
could be doing something really interesting with the expertise assembled here.
-- 
Paul Vixie

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG () nanog org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog