Re: OSPF minutia, and, technote publication venues

1 msg	BGP issues qwest in Burbank, CA
1 msg	Looking for Yahoo-SOC contact
1 msg	Cachefly Contact
2 msg	auth*.ns.uu.net
1 msg	auth00/auth100.ns.uu.net down ?
3 msg	PCH BGP Archive down?
1 msg	Looking for Flickr contacts
2 msg	Charter - Southern Oregon routing issues
1 msg	Google Contact
1 msg	Bob Crooks/SaskTel/CA is out of the office.
51 msg	Microsoft.com PMTUD black hole?
4 msg	Strange network behaviour
1 msg	Was Burma off the air due to the Cyclone ?
17 msg	OSPF minutia, and, technote publication venues
2 msg	Deadline Extension UBICOMM 2008, September 29 -...
1 msg	[Fwd: Re: outages]
2 msg	outages

Did Youtube not pay their domain bill?
\ sthaug (3 May 2008)
. \ Niels Bakker (3 May 2008)
. . \ sthaug (3 May 2008)
. \ Kipkemoi Kibiego (3 May 2008)
. . \ Eric Spaeth (3 May 2008)
. . . \ Randy Bush (3 May 2008)
. . . . \ Brant I. Stevens (3 May 2008)
. . . . . \ Brant I. Stevens (3 May 2008)
. . . . . \ Eric Spaeth (3 May 2008)
. . . . . . \ David Coulson (3 May 2008)
. . . . . . . \ Marshall Eubanks (3 May 2008)
. . . . . . . \ sthaug (3 May 2008)
. . . . . . . \ Mike Lewinski (3 May 2008)
. . . . . . . . \ Kevin Blackham (3 May 2008)
. . . . . . . . \ Steve Gibbard (3 May 2008)
. . . . . . . . . \ Paul Vixie (4 May 2008)
. . . . . . . . . . \ Deepak Jain (5 May 2008)
. . . . . . . . . . \ Steve Gibbard (5 May 2008)
. . . . . . . . . . . \ Stuart Henderson (5 May 2008)
. . . . . . . . . . . \ Paul Vixie (5 May 2008)
. . . . . . \ Randy Bush (3 May 2008)

9 msg	Introducing latency for testing?
33 msg	fair warning: less than 1000 days left to IPv4 ...

Subject:	Re: OSPF minutia, and, technote publication venues
Group:	Nanog
From:	Paul Vixie
Date:	5 May 2008

> ...
> 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
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog