Re: [Rfcplusplus] IRTF stream considerations

Well, I'm not following any RGs so my view is slightly dated but there 
was a time when the ICCRG was evaluating congestion control proposals 
and making recommendations on safety before the TSV wgs could consider 
them.  More generally, there's a tradition of the IRTF considering 
topics where it's not clear whether they are research or engineering 
having a home.  I thought of the common publication format and venue as 
being rather helpful for migrating from one to the other.

--aaron

On 11 Jul 2018, at 14:26, Allison Mankin wrote:

> 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
>>
>>