Re: [Coin] Academic contributions in COIN

[Marie-Jose Montpetit <[e-mail]>]

Wrt. valuation of scientific papers vs. (IRTF) RFCs: the publication
process of an RFCs is equal if not more stringent than reviews being made
in (some/most?) conferences or journals (the process and purpose are
different but for the sake of the comparison I put them on the same level).
So, I would encourage RFCs to be more recognized as valuable metric even in
the academic world.

I agree.


mjm


Marie-José Montpetit, Ph.D.
Research Affiliate, MIT Media Laboratory
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

On October 9, 2019 at 11:29:19 AM, Ciavaglia, Laurent (Nokia -
FR/Paris-Saclay) ([e-mail]) wrote:

😉



-> Bring this discussion to IRTF discuss mailing list? (or even to some
relevant blog sites?)



I think IRTF has been doing some useful stuff/initiatives such as the
Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP) and Workshop (ANRW) and
corresponding funding to support academic participation to the work in IRTF
in general.

I will repeat that an IRTF Journal (ANRJ) could be also an interesting
project (but maybe I don't see well enough the challenges/difficulties).



Wrt. valuation of scientific papers vs. (IRTF) RFCs: the publication
process of an RFCs is equal if not more stringent than reviews being made
in (some/most?) conferences or journals (the process and purpose are
different but for the sake of the comparison I put them on the same level).
So, I would encourage RFCs to be more recognized as valuable metric even in
the academic world.

The time scales are radically different (several months vs. several years),
but at the time of evaluation an Internet Drafts goes through the review of
the RG, the RG adoption also need consensus, then another review before
submission to IRSG for review, IRSG review in itself, and IESG review. This
makes at least 3 bodies of subject-matter experts reviewing and analyzing
the document before it gets a chance to go on the RFC editor desk 😉

But again, changing the perception is a long-term effort.



Best regards, Laurent.







*From:* Coin <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Marie-Jose Montpetit
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 9, 2019 16:23
*To:* Aaron Ding <[e-mail]>; Rute Sofia <[e-mail]>
*Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
*Subject:* Re: [Coin] Academic contributions in COIN



BTW yesterday we did mention drafts were not mandatory. Send us your papers!



And this discussion goes beyond COIN. What specifically can we do?

Marie-José Montpetit, Ph.D.

Research Affiliate, MIT Media Laboratory

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

On October 9, 2019 at 9:50:25 AM, Rute Sofia ([e-mail]) wrote:

Hi Aaron,



right. This is a good paper and  5.2 summarises the main issues both for
the IETF and IRTF J (before Marie-Jose again tries to explain the
differences between the IRTF and IETF :)



The fact is that there is the need to do more long-run work to change the
acceptance of standards in the academic/scientific committee. I have had
colleagues in juris of PhDs which surprisingly think drafts are not
relevant. In terms of academic CV, I had actually such comments also about
both IETF and IRTF contributions to standards J



Yes, we all have to contribute so on my side, all MSc and PhD students are
involved to at least monitor working groups. Some of them end-up in
contributing. As the paper provided by Aaron shows, this is time consuming,
and unfortunately there is no funding to support a direct involvement from
the students. Not even mine, for the last decade.



Remote participation is therefore a good measure; however,  without broad
dissemination, the acceptance may be reduced.



I second all of the proposals by Laurent…they are effective measures.

Rute







*From:* Coin <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Aaron Ding
*Sent:* 09 October 2019 15:34
*To:* Rute Sofia <[e-mail]>
*Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]..uk
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
*Subject:* Re: [Coin] Academic contributions in COIN



Hi Rute,



assumingly, some points below have been made for both communities,
especially for the European academic side:

http://www..sigcomm.org/sites/default/files/ccr/papers/2014/January/2567561-2567572.pdf
<http://www.sigcomm.org/sites/default/files/ccr/papers/2014/January/2567561-2567572.pdf>



The funding part has always been a concern, not just for academia..



Cheers,

Aaron

--

Assistant Professor, TU Delft

Head of Cyber-Physical Intelligence (CPI) Lab

http://homepage.tudelft.nl/8e79t/



*From: *Coin <[e-mail]> on behalf of Rute Sofia <
[e-mail]>
*Date: *Wednesday, 9 October 2019 at 15:12
*To: *Marie-Jose Montpetit <[e-mail]>, Noa Zilberman <
[e-mail]>
*Cc: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <
[e-mail]>
*Subject: *Re: [Coin] Academic contributions in COIN



Dear Marie-Jose Montpetit,



there is a reason for that. Standards are not usually, at least in Europe,
considered valid success indicators from an academic/scientific
perspective. Classes on research methodologies do not usually approach
standardisation, even if oriented towards research. That is why a lot of
students (IMO, from my own academic experience in several countries) don’t
follow the IRTF/IETF.



Additionally, participation in the IRTF/IETF requires travelling, which is
costly. Academic institutions and projects do not (usually ) foresee this.
In fact, in European projects the standardisation is actually left to the
industry partners.. No funding, no reason to participate J



This is slowly changing.



Tutorials, and organization of workshops co-located to scientific events,
is a fast way to attract students. After all, most conferences today have a
PhD forum…I agree also with the other measures being proposed…



BR

Rute





*From:* Marie-Jose Montpetit <[e-mail]>
*Sent:* 09 October 2019 13:10
*To:* Rute Sofia <[e-mail]>; Noa Zilberman <
[e-mail]>
*Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]
*Subject:* RE: [Coin] Academic contributions in COIN



I also did both and still do. But if professors are not interested students
will not either. So we have to work all angles.



Marie-José Montpetit, Ph.D.

Research Affiliate, MIT Media Laboratory

[e-mail]

[e-mail]



On October 9, 2019 at 7:02:00 AM, Rute Sofia ([e-mail]) wrote:

Well,



it is for students. I am in both worlds (academia and research towards
industry) so… J

Rute



*From:* Marie-Jose Montpetit <[e-mail]>
*Sent:* 09 October 2019 12:42
*To:* Rute Sofia <[e-mail]>; Noa Zilberman <
[e-mail]>
*Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]
*Subject:* RE: [Coin] Academic contributions in COIN



But that is the point: IRTF is NOT standardisation.



But OK for tutorials it seems its needed :)



mjm



Marie-José Montpetit, Ph.D.

Research Affiliate, MIT Media Laboratory

[e-mail]

[e-mail]



On October 9, 2019 at 4:38:21 AM, Rute Sofia ([e-mail]) wrote:

Hello,



I would also suggest considering organizing tutorials and workshops
co-located with relevant scientific events. IMO most students are not
directed to standardisation. Therefore, most of them usually do not work
towards the IETF/IRTF.



So to attract academia, one of the best intruments are scientific events.



BR

Rute Sofia



*From:* Coin <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Noa Zilberman
*Sent:* 08 October 2019 20:01
*To:* Marie-Jose Montpetit <[e-mail]>
*Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]
*Subject:* Re: [Coin] Academic contributions in COIN



Hi,



I would suggest that we need to find ways to incentivize academics to
engage with COIN.



Some ideas that I can think of are:

1. Clearly list challenges on the wiki. These may be accompanied by drafts,
but not necessarily, and can be something that was discussed on the mailing
list,

   a presentation from a meeting etc. Ideally those will be accompanied by
one or two lines to describe the challenge (+pointers). This helps not only
to identify gaps, but also if there's a graduate student looking for a
project in in-network computing, there may be a "go to page" hosted by
COINRG with potential research challenges, and potential collaborators.

2. Invite postdocs and students to talk at the meetings. They are usually
the first authors of papers so they know the tech side well, are more
likely to have the time to travel, and are eager to discuss their research.

3. Make data available (this was briefly mentioned in the meeting). These
may be use cases, datasets, traces etc.  Research is better if it is driven
by real world data (and more likely to get published).

4. List collaboration opportunities, internships etc that fall within
COINRG domain.



Kind Regards,

Noa



On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 4:55 PM Marie-Jose Montpetit <[e-mail]>
wrote:

Today at the Interim Noa Zilberman raised the issue on how to help
academics contribute to COIN (thanks Noa!).



Obviously drafts are not the right vehicle for most academics and Colin
Perkins added that we could have other mechanisms.



Some inputs:

- academic presentations at the meeting with appropriate papers stored in
the Github and datatracker (we already have done some of this)

- if a topic could lead to a RFC support academic collaborators in writing
a draft

- keeping a list of related conferences and try to have mini-PRG meetings
there



But I am sure there is much more. So what are the list’s ideas?



The minutes of the meeting will be issued and I have a recording I will
upload to the GitHub.



Thanks all!



mjm



Marie-José Montpetit, Ph.D.

Research Affiliate, MIT Media Laboratory

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

-- 
Coin mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/coin

-- 
Coin mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.irtf..org/mailman/listinfo/coin
<https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/coin>