Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 10 July 2018 23:46 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 A6BE9130DDC for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 16:46:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, 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 srxZNATdxXLU for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 16:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl0-x234.google.com (mail-pl0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::234]) (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 BB4811311CF for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 16:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl0-x234.google.com with SMTP id w8-v6so8305615ply.8 for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 16:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mzJk2m4oqvzYXQh9aA2O1fOJYN1nmok8AFZVz/9Cjgc=; b=tUYNJrL5O0eNKt/tMf8mVaYWoqPyzbU2tiAtmBy8Zr4DulS5qOxSzgX7qgb9HeEKU5 wSXpXPEvosiXBxxUqKjTAq1iRzlk1NVDOTfWgRkI0BztFYnDW5dIBRsUdMcVyXf0s5hg Yls+ugqgx9VIrJLUZOOvkDM2bIViGM63ChDaCO9GTjABxRPoylBScziIrB8/1x4xMKMT 5aDONARgFPH6ZCGVwywktc6/7dgWNUtUPnXrSB5Fc51XJtUSrCi3C+uklfnWuA3UYmxD ZWam2CFeLzh2S9SgE3SdqzTbIHemC9Fose+w7YkOAMWD/OPmwMp2z17IGxnpYOuJtTeI JIlQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=mzJk2m4oqvzYXQh9aA2O1fOJYN1nmok8AFZVz/9Cjgc=; b=jvbq20pMzEMqzaouHD5EDfpSbu2Avsu0uk9zrCuB6wSYsXEJ9VPeiDiFmfYgCeRelU FW4BqPO18saFX6b1ypMrwfs5TVp6A5DGk82py2rWv3CzgoR2saGTm8NJNJfRQPFZm7fj N0OMuwmqGh1FB1T4+lNYNZL7rJUMurQ4ltVhe8EKFlCp6HCNvJ8EYw5eqgsLLNWC2cks uFm7kJtkmneUvCj9nEGnLZ3buj8Ts1RZZmsGCNQWEoItWykDvLMBO48XPKMG68YM0RHH YIpmJHHo7TxdF3wXvok9zhiGN2Qx79U1R43mbNAo5kc42gy/W9ux9ktysto2Sh8R7qfT iE1A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E0Ky7ueJhuRntw9FUQHskA9ekVsGoj3LNXiBho865D56QaaIu47 7MFPycYZq3jSBOXnwIGSdfLVKQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpfMkDkZBal7QHd1rACaM/OhShal0j+cz26lY/XRU+Y3fQ2YjoOq//bhK02MQY3Ce9YqsCTD7w==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7043:: with SMTP id h3-v6mr26594163plt.269.1531266379100; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 16:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.38] ([118.148.121.80]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t3-v6sm33372773pfk.161.2018.07.10.16.46.17 for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Jul 2018 16:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
To: rfcplusplus@ietf.org
References: <CA+9kkMBVC82qy0hbUbQKm=OsFPsaJUPndtVaxd782au6Qy0w6Q@mail.gmail.com> <a4b50286-5c54-e6cf-9087-7171030b7fca@juniper.net> <CA+9kkMB7rJ7KHkpMxu5wUzQwva=qZ02-7C71YttQ5upXvjB5oQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9cc8662e-fe1e-f26f-a55e-1f654309917d@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 11:46:19 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMB7rJ7KHkpMxu5wUzQwva=qZ02-7C71YttQ5upXvjB5oQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfcplusplus/oWwrMkOdXqOCFk_QzcNpQTnb6BI>
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 23:46:24 -0000

On 11/07/2018 06:15, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Howdy,
> 
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 7/9/2018 11:24 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>
>>> the academic community's failure to value the output of the IRTF
>>>
>>
>> I don't understand the relevance of this issue to anything being discussed
>> here.
>>
>> If a RG wishes to publish its output in a respected academic journal, I
>> don't think there is anything to stop them.
>>
>> I meant specifically "output as RFCs", sorry that wasn't as clear as it
> needed to be.
> 
> 
>> Maintaining the current publication process for RG output but changing the
>> name from "RFC" to "IRTF-Masterpiece" is not going to make any difference
>> in how the academic community values the work.
>>
>>
> That's not what others are saying.  The problem as it has been explained to
> me is that tenure committees and similar academic assessments look at the
> output of the individual in part by looking at where the output has
> appeared.  When it appears in a series which looks to them to be primarily
> engineering specifications, it is not valued as highly.  A differently
> labeled series which was entirely composed of research output might be
> valued differently.

That's highly unlikely. Although the whole business of journal impact factors
and the value of conference publications is mainly pseudo-science, and the
whole question of open-access journals (where the author's institution pays)
versus traditional journals (where the reader's institution pays) is very
contentious, the chance of a brand new series from the IRTF breaking into
that game is vanishingly small. (IMNSHO, of course)

RFCs have a 50 year history and are in fact widely cited in academic
publications. My own 2nd highest citation count** is 422 for RFC1958
(unfortunately, most indexes have me as author, not editor). My highest
non-RFC citation count is 153.

**according to Google Scholar.

   Brian
 
> I agree with Eliot's earlier point that this is a "might", and that the
> value ascribed to it depends not just on its output but on the work done to
> highlight the stream's output.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Ted
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rfcplusplus mailing list
> Rfcplusplus@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus
>