Re: [Rfcplusplus] IRTF stream considerations

Hi, Aaron,

What would be examples of the surprising?

I don’t see an IRTF more academic stream as being in the strict mold of
conferences and journals, if that is the issue.

Allison

On Wednesday, 11 July 2018, Aaron Falk <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
>
>