Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor

["Aaron Falk" <[e-mail]>]

On 10 Jul 2018, at 17:13, Ted Hardie wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Aaron Falk <[e-mail]> 
> wrote:
>
>> IIRC, the copyrights for IRTF stream RFCs default to permit 
>> publication
>> elsewhere to allow for easy submission in more-recognized forums.
>>
>
> Well, you're the author of the relevant doc, so I hesitate to cite it 
> to
> you, but the text is in RFC 5743 and in
> https://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-License-Policy.pdf.  
> Basically,
> though, the individuals retain their own copyright (along with the 
> Trust
> Copyright, managed by the IETF Trust at the request of the IRTF).  
> They can
> re-submit.

Thanks for confirming my memory is still of some use. ;)

>
>> Finally, I haven't seen anyone present that helping IRTF output get 
>> more
>> recognition is a goal of this activity. Is someone asking for this?
>>
>
> It's been a discussion between IRTF folk and the IAB for some time.  
> It
> could, of course, be a separate activity from this experiment.
>

Indeed.  I think it is separate for the reason in my last message you 
chose not to cite:

>  an important reason for RGs to publish RFCs is the same reason that 
> they are RGs in the first place: to have their work be adjacent, 
> influence, and possibly migrate to the IETF. Of course, that is not 
> the only reason we have RGs but it is a good reason to have 
> non-standards track output in similar format & repositories as the 
> IETF.

To be explicit: while there might be value in creating a peer-reviewed 
"IRTF Journal" or somesuch (and it has been proposed many times), many 
IRTF documents would be candidates for it.  Compared the IRTF RFC 
Stream, the criteria for publication would be quite different.

--aaron