Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor

"Aaron Falk" <aaron.falk@gmail.com> Tue, 10 July 2018 20:23 UTC

Return-Path: <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0716130E73 for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jHOI6zlXrCz3 for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x233.google.com (mail-qt0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 342621311B5 for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x233.google.com with SMTP id m13-v6so19528911qth.1 for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version; bh=ZLo5WzyvMTBn+n9wWHvP2aHCZFe4FtQfIJNePvWf7Q4=; b=m+H80dbo2ahfSvyXgc/Azuf/4rxQ3wIu1Mg/9PG3hQDeKfSXR56mBqUuBAY+DCTeso hFpEsnqafqHFUGh69eVoDo0ObnQIMD9PM8eBFyQ2crvpnIx+W3hEuNY/RFPrdvdR4tgf wcrWc/EyupNukH6jO28HzKfOqQVu9tyRZkOen3wCGIGn/AhQm9qawsjnPGfSjdy0BgJX ABJU1O2FJbIeZnzEgyrTt/caYZCsg/+mNFGqjLnGnPLSO+P4UjV2LUOlgcjrkkATMfR1 Sq/eeSSB9qyJWKOTwFJuHIQEpU+D2R6QkdaWL5RfzQ/9MsSE5GgTl+48ewrJ5o9bbVy8 7+uQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version; bh=ZLo5WzyvMTBn+n9wWHvP2aHCZFe4FtQfIJNePvWf7Q4=; b=lUBeTLVNGKIQdtqaU5IJWxyrDXbJhbIaHOrtdvm/9SY96A3oi20gBcdFK3lV5w/WXn gFovGwAyByhdml7LrjW2qhuxWD9IxjbaR6xofn5fe7qADsB/5XZ5miZojakpnxGdmGFP AzzsHfH/v53Xk3b+WiU0iTUkCXO3KFkRz2SbWW9Z0MmYaqqtblMWqnTJKhiTiJiFhtnU prABkeD4BWxkyFCrp0YFSh9xZ+70YUUU3zaQm/blcVgBqeCSNin0k6LuzeK6apyg98d4 NJvlE7LR/wJIJbuFhip2j7ylguGHs7zQjv7fgXT8Ldlpj7PEriOi/43SDK6cItA8ndtm mI9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E1bp0Z15f45DwanudmLkZl2p1AY0INDZKFNMbrUWkQhm0FuKslk +bYOtkJsXgWA/ankz4iRauE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcoz3O6CJVfh2XGIrTyYIWy9jwZuvRtIJ3y2ObeFgRQTr56D62yBNJow5Z5wHvqwLk5enTR/A==
X-Received: by 2002:aed:2317:: with SMTP id h23-v6mr24134965qtc.85.1531254224919; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.19.33.154] ([2001:4878:a000:3000:f826:7a2c:984c:1004]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p13-v6sm14108685qki.12.2018.07.10.13.23.43 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>, rfcplusplus@ietf.org, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 16:23:42 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.11.2r5507)
Message-ID: <1F7626CA-FB10-402A-BCF3-EA89526AC63C@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMDwOuLOJMzBSowqga-6s0GnO=03PBScOaHRcJT0+QYicw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBVC82qy0hbUbQKm=OsFPsaJUPndtVaxd782au6Qy0w6Q@mail.gmail.com> <a4b50286-5c54-e6cf-9087-7171030b7fca@juniper.net> <C9EBFF44-DB93-45E4-954D-2AC5E2F47D03@gmail.com> <20180710192810.GQ20282@mx4.yitter.info> <0e127473-902a-2421-6b5d-73f9e7f83286@juniper.net> <CA+9kkMDwOuLOJMzBSowqga-6s0GnO=03PBScOaHRcJT0+QYicw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_8E9775E6-1377-477F-908B-43E88A199413_="
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfcplusplus/OQ0YzeOd6hZxOlpUfLROAjUcUM8>
Subject: Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor
X-BeenThere: rfcplusplus@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: For discussion of the RFC++ BoF proposal and related ideas <rfcplusplus.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rfcplusplus>, <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfcplusplus/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfcplusplus@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus>, <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:23:50 -0000


On 10 Jul 2018, at 16:09, Ted Hardie wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net> 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> If the IRTF determines that it would prefer a different publication 
>> venue,
>> I certainly have no problem with that.  We shouldn't force 
>> researchers to
>> publish their work as RFCs.  (I didn't think we did so, but ...)  If 
>> I were
>> a researcher, I'd probably want to publish in a reputable academic 
>> journal,
>> but perhaps my academic experience is a bit dated.
>>
>> But that's really irrelevant to the main topic of this discussion. 
>> What we
>> are primarily discussing is whether we should prohibit folks from
>> publishing RFCs when they want to do so and find it valuable to do 
>> so.
>> That's a completely different question.
>>
>>
> I must respectfully disagree that this is an irrelevant question.  The
> proposed experiment would establish new identifiers for the work of 
> the
> IRTF currently published as a stream within the RFC series.  That 
> output
> might (and I acknowledge again that it is only "might") change the 
> academic
> assessment of that output while retaining its other characteristics.  
> I
> personally believe this question is thus on topic for a discussion of 
> the
> experiment.

As the IRTF chair when this stream was formalized I should point out 
that 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.

IIRC, the copyrights for IRTF stream RFCs default to permit publication 
elsewhere to allow for easy submission in more-recognized forums.

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?

--aaron