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

Fernando Gont <> Thu, 25 February 2021 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F7743A1F45; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:14:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NpJDiFdQnVXD; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:14:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DA0B3A1EEF; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:14:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:a449:5f08:346f:44bd] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:a449:5f08:346f:44bd]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 31CCB28062B; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 19:14:02 +0000 (UTC)
To: Lars Eggert <>, Theresa Enghardt <>
Cc: Keith Moore <>, GENDISPATCH List <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 15:00:42 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 19:14:27 -0000

On 25/2/21 14:29, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
> On 2021-2-25, at 18:16, Theresa Enghardt <> wrote:
>> 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.
> that was actually the main motivation for collocating ANRW always with the IETF - typically, academics can justify conference and workshop travel much more easily than standards travel.

That's certainly interesting. We'll add a note about this along with 
Theresa's other comments.

>> 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.
> 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.

Was the rationale documented anywhere?  (since this might be of value to 
note/reference, along with your other note above).


Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492