[Rfcplusplus] IRTF stream considerations

[Allison Mankin <[e-mail]>]

(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