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

Theresa Enghardt <> Thu, 25 February 2021 16:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BE963A1BC5; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 08:16:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 sIyg09ujqUJM; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 08:16:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EFAD3A1BC4; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 08:16:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from user.client.invalid (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C6ACEAA; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 17:16:20 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=20170414; t=1614269782; bh=ntq3v2BcXq7AdjCszY9Xi/ZdXJu2i3Ukcvn8QcBkDHQ=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=fdZOpmoV0K1riVaIBIF0KvIsdHjhGbYz9RbNPQGD9cl8UUwj/lGAGgH3ARrVLbFhR vHUJg0kfIidPBcrs3kabv64c+XPAHoKW97YVkFyoRTeIXoUF2kV5OZy+n5Lc18yp1E lvb8DGAr+yeZSzpqTmAhEcgPsARA+MOmPg2I5fLnUOVNn/j+8b9Hg528ED4San+HCf oP/dBJiG6HPhRkcNgWcpUFEnprHk2vik985wnitTM32Fe78DmDP9zMeXwAzKRIkbpJ Z3O+mdzXMj6f6VjpGsoGvo2Juvjg+N1xhd1yntK2K6Ipx9sBJHY9OauqILos94SNRH boFEZiku2J6kA==
To: Fernando Gont <>, Keith Moore <>
Cc: GENDISPATCH List <>, "''" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Theresa Enghardt <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 08:16:16 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
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: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 16:16:26 -0000

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 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!