Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor

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

On 10 Jul 2018, at 17:24, Aaron Falk wrote:

> 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

*not* (sigh)

> be candidates for it.  Compared the IRTF RFC Stream, the criteria for 
> publication would be quite different.
>
> --aaron