Re: [Rgchairs] thoughs about the IRTF

Pete Resnick <> Tue, 02 November 2004 03:24 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA19663; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 22:24:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1COpWD-0005Oi-DE; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:39:38 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1COpAC-00030z-R6; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:16:52 -0500
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1COoss-0003sJ-OI for; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 21:58:58 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06614 for <>; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 21:58:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1COp7u-0004ot-CL for; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:14:30 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Mon, 1 Nov 2004 20:58:27 -0600
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: (Unverified)
Message-Id: <p07000c12bdac9700031a@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20041029083030.GE2249@james> <> <> <> <p07000c0ebdac640b11ba@[]> <>
X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 6.2a9]
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 20:58:25 -0500
To: Geoff Huston <>
From: Pete Resnick <>
Subject: Re: [Rgchairs] thoughs about the IRTF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <>,,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF research group chairs list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d

On 11/2/04 at 10:41 AM +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:

>At 09:09 AM 2/11/2004, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>In among all of the other discussions we've been having about the 
>>future of the IRTF, one of the things (at least some of us have) 
>>talked about was a separate "Research" track (akin to the Standards 
>>track) for IRTF documents so that research folks could have some 
>>recognition other than "just another Informational document". 
>>Personally, I think this would be a good thing.
>Personally, I agree with this proposition. In my mind IRTF documents 
>are much closer to the original spirit of an actual "request for 
>comment" than our standards track and information documents these 
>It seems to me there are two things here that split off in different 
>directions if we want to pursue this - the creation of a RFC 
>document track for IRTF-sourced documents would probably be a newtrk 
>WG consideration, as far as I can see. The process to follow to get 
>IRTF outputs to the RFC editor directly would be something for the 
>IAB to work through with the RFC Editor and the IRTF chair I would 

I don't see how a research track in the RFC series would require any 
action from newtrk. They're working on the IETF track of documents. I 
see no reason why we (as the sponsor/organizer of the IRTF and policy 
approvers of the RFC Editor) can't just ask the RFC Editor to make a 
new track (should we decide that that's what we and the IRTF want).

Pete Resnick <>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

Rgchairs mailing list