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

Lars Eggert <> Fri, 26 February 2021 07:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92EA13A09B9; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 23:55:02 -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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lgDTGXmwoKx5; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 23:54:58 -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 0C6A03A09B5; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 23:54:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:b9:15ed:9bd5:c92f] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:b9:15ed:9bd5:c92f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 730D960030F; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:54:50 +0200 (EET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=dkim; t=1614326090; bh=zijAXMro91KAdyBFJ++SnB0STbkr5uOj8IuZ/QWH1QI=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=xCyG9AWD3Y40lO3bqnt3pMtPrkgYOJTMIGuZffqC70lW17Hi8zGqKioYIoyZeoSK4 boXs/ryT9ajpzBvK9TAOJaT1YoJE0Tx4XXYnRZU3HOMWeuZxX9l8XVIMm4W/lO3M+l Oy8iVb5FCLQTwrwrqunGadVsnLojBClTqaYbN3is=
From: Lars Eggert <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7A3C4686-BEC1-43EE-9C4C-3BBC056713FD"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:54:49 +0200
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Theresa Enghardt <>, Fernando Gont <>, GENDISPATCH List <>, Keith Moore <>, "" <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-MailScanner-ID: 730D960030F.A196D
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
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 07:55:03 -0000


On 2021-2-25, at 23:21, Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
> On 26-Feb-21 06:29, Lars Eggert wrote:
>> One thing we did to increase the value of RFCs to academics was to assign them DOIs, which at least for universities in some geos is a prerequisite to even recognizing RFCs as academic output.
> Nevertheless, it is in general hard to get RFCs recognised as valuable for tenure and promotion purposes, compared to more traditional publication streams such as highly-rated journals.

completely agreed. DOIs don't fully solve the problem, they are a first required step. Some tenure committees operate under rules that don't makes it difficult to consider evaluating something that doesn't have a DOI.

> That's one reason we did but I'm not sure it has had much impact.

Yes, that is an invaluable document when RFCs are able to be considered for evaluation.