Re: [Rgchairs] thoughs about the IRTF

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 
>days.
>
>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 
>guess.

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).

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

_______________________________________________
Rgchairs mailing list
Rgchairs@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rgchairs