Re: [Gendispatch] Academia (Re: Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF)

Colin Perkins <> Fri, 26 February 2021 11:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90DDB3A130F; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 03:03:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b0ia4iFomy-2; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 03:03:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 139A73A130E; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 03:03:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=mythic-beasts-k1; h=To:Date:From:Subject; bh=lhozMePljKGi8wR6xJTqAj6zBHG9P0rIx2AAsKRm84w=; b=DtzsYFLPpzctVDB2SNqnJdgIZE JDSyqeksL2MZRUu9B6Mpct3ae0/vmfdQoa9h1hCRokCdzSx0udjI4uIWXoISozsFf6xZ+khkmi3z0 3HBNK7BYkV9JUmGYA4obzfhuufJnC/1Cda9P54SjmIm/31mJ7iD+LeUqUK67mqtAOBK+vr6W660qD 6Pcs63UU99X+H32d5NEnjpdtHa9eHrGOXMT2CCh8V4KjNmxl9b1ut2MWiwIE/9ArsRMMuLT+RHppM +nP8k2rGQmCmdJred9ptsK2ybf5YiHIZv/J8FBlg3vP7QaSL2o7GjgDUpyYKCPBeP625Wep2mespe GQD3nV2Q==;
Received: from [] (port=47300 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <>) id 1lFats-0000Py-A7; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 11:03:12 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
From: Colin Perkins <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 11:03:07 +0000
Cc: Fernando Gont <>, GENDISPATCH List <>, "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Theresa Enghardt <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 4
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Academia (Re: Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 11:03:18 -0000

> On 25 Feb 2021, at 16:16, Theresa Enghardt <> wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
> On 2/24/21 10:13 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> […]
>>> that the Working Group can get ideas from. For instance, a few years
>>> ago, we have had several academics present their work in TAPS, and that
>>> was definitely a lot of helpful input. Not sure how common this style of
>>> contribution is, but I think it does happen especially when a smaller WG
>>> is in an "early stage" where they benefit from a lot of input and ideas.
>>> (Of course, a lot of work that is relevant to IETF Working Groups is
>>> getting presented at IRTF sessions, e.g., MAPRG, IRTF Open, or at ANRW.
>>> But I can understand if you consider these out of scope for your document.)
>> I think what you describe is definitely within scope.
>> That said, in my experienve, in many cases groups seem to receive points for peer-reviewed conference papers, but not for IRTF/IETF-style of participation, unfortunately. So making it to the IETF will typically be harder (in terms of funding) than e.g. attending to an IEEE or ACM conference.
> That is true. With ANRW, you at least get to present a short paper or poster at a workshop, so that's a step in the right direction.
> Good point about publications. RFCs are publications, too, so there is definitely some ROI in (co-)authoring an RFC as an academic. However, usually the entire process takes much longer than writing academic papers. And I'm not sure how academia at large values RFCs relative to papers, but at least in the part that I know, I would say they're valued.

I think this is very much country dependent. The UK government, for example, explicitly evaluates impact beyond academia when assessing university research, so promotion committees generally value standards work, but that’s certainly not true everywhere.


> I think some academic institutions explicitly value it if researchers give "input to practice", demonstrate the applicability of their work, etc. So that could be used as a reason for presenting at IETF meetings, too, though most academic institutions would not understand the difference between IETF and IRTF sessions.
> You're welcome and good luck with the next revision!
> Best,
> Theresa

Colin Perkins