Re: [Rfcplusplus] IRTF stream considerations

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

+1!

On 7/11/18 12:25 PM, Aaron Falk wrote:
> Sorry, I forgot to mention that I think a "open, academically reviewed
> proceedings/journal" is a great thing and will be good for the IRTF and
> the IETF.
> 
> --aaron
> 
> On 11 Jul 2018, at 14:23, Aaron Falk 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
>         [e-mail]
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rfcplusplus mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus
>