Re: [Rfcplusplus] IRTF stream considerations

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi Allison,

On 12/07/2018 05:26, 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.

Well, that's good to hear, but nevertheless it is an IETF BOF and that
limits its direct input to IESG decision making (certainly not its
range of topics). What the IRTF decides to do is its own choice, of course.

Personally (IRTF participant hat on) I think this is a very good thing
for the IRTF to discuss, and I look forward to the discussion when
it's brought to the IRTF as a whole. (I'm assuming this is not something
the IRSG believes it can decide on its own.) Others have mentioned
some of the obvious questions about the boundary between this and
the RFC series.

> 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.

Yes. In my mind there's a distinction between IRTF output that is indeed
"just" research, and IRTF output that directly feeds into IETF follow-up.
Of course, where the line lies is a judgment call.
 
> 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).

Since I haven't seen this discussed on IRTF lists, don't you mean that this
is a likely proposal from the IRSG for discussion?

Regards
   Brian
> 
> 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
>