Re: [Rgchairs] thoughs about the IRTF

Geoff Huston <> Tue, 02 November 2004 00:19 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25203; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 19:19:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1COmde-0001TB-Rr; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 19:35:09 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1COmB9-0003xP-4z; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 19:05:39 -0500
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1COlpC-0000D9-U8 for; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:42:59 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA21516 for <>; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 18:42:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1COm4C-0000GP-IY for; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:58:29 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id iA1NfVcj052629; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:41:32 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 10:41:13 +1100
To: Pete Resnick <>
From: Geoff Huston <>
Subject: Re: [Rgchairs] thoughs about the IRTF
In-Reply-To: <p07000c0ebdac640b11ba@[]>
References: <20041029083030.GE2249@james> <> <> <> <p07000c0ebdac640b11ba@[]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1
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: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9

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.



At 09:09 AM 2/11/2004, Pete Resnick wrote:
>On 11/2/04 at 9:15 AM +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
>>I would be reluctant to confuse this publication stream with individual 
>>submissions, and I think it would be useful to define a clear path via 
>>the IRTF Chair (or the IRSG) from the IRTF to the RFC Editor to a 
>>published document.
>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.
>Pete Resnick <>
>QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

Rgchairs mailing list