Re: [Rfcplusplus] IRTF stream considerations

Diego,

That’s something I expect we’d resolve in the IRSG business meetings.

Allison

On Wednesday, 11 July 2018, Diego R. Lopez <diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> And, as shepherd of an IRTF document awaiting IEG review, what would be
> the fate of those in the queue?
>
>
>
> Be goode,
>
>
>
> --
>
> "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"
>
>
>
> Dr Diego R. Lopez
>
> Telefonica I+D
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr2lopez/
>
>
>
> e-mail: diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com
>
> Tel:         +34 913 129 041
>
> Mobile:  +34 682 051 091
>
> ----------------------------------
>
>
>
> On 11/07/2018, 20:23, "Rfcplusplus on behalf of Aaron Falk" <
> rfcplusplus-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of aaron.falk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Allison-
>
> Can you clarify whether you are proposing to end the IRTF RFC stream when
> this new series is created or supplementing it with another, more
> academically oriented stream? If the former, do you believe all IRTF
> documents can be published either as IETF RFCs or the new type? (I would
> find that surprising.)
>
> --aaron
>
> On 11 Jul 2018, at 13:26, Allison Mankin wrote:
>
> (IRTF Chair hat on)
>
> One of my goals as IRTF Chair is precisely to create a new, non-RFC stream
> for the IRTF. So, IRTF is very much an interested party in this BOF.
>
>
>
> The most common response I get during outreach into academia is that RFCs
> aren’t a good medium for most academics. This is despite researchers’ wish
> eventually to have ideas deployed. We’ve been exploring what work product
> will best serve the research community, and . this does include
> distinguishing the work from the RFCs. I like Brian Trammell’s discussion
> in the “conversation” thread very much, btw; he has expressed how academics
> and pseudo-academics contribute very well.
>
>
>
> I notice there has been little call for data about IRTF and RFCs. I think
> it’s because RFC does mostly signify a production brand. I’d encourage the
> other streams to examine what makes them production-ready.
>
>
>
> We in IRTF do have some work close to production, for example, CFRG crypto
> recommendations. I would want to talk with IESG about appropriate AD
> sponsorship when that would be the best context for a draft.
>
>
>
> Other work we would like to place into an IRTF stream with a new brand. I
> expect us to start developing an open, academically reviewed
> proceedings/journal soon, to best serve our researcher contributions. It
> will focus on applied research and running code, similar to ANRW.
>
>
>
> In summary, IRTF is ready to start our part of an rfcplusplus experiment.
> We are a part of the IETF community and indeed a part of this BOF (this
> responds to Brian Carpenter’s comment quoted below).
>
>
>
> Allison
>
>
>
> ——————-
>
>
>
> Brian Carpenter wrote:
>
>
>
> Ted,
>
> It would be on topic if there was a proposal inside the IRTF to change the
> publication venue for IRTF output. But this is an IETF BOF so all we can do
> is discuss how IETF stream documents are published.
>
> I know this is an inconvenient truth for some people, but there it is.
>
>    Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rfcplusplus mailing list
> Rfcplusplus@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario,
> puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso
> exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el
> destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización,
> divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de
> la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos
> que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su
> destrucción.
>
> The information contained in this transmission is privileged and
> confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or
> entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the
> sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete
> it.
>
> Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário,
> pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo
> da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário
> indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou
> cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente.
> Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique
> imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição
>