Re: [Rgchairs] thoughs about the IRTF

"Karen R. Sollins" <> Tue, 02 November 2004 19:58 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03899; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:58:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CP53A-0003hK-N7; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 15:14:41 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CP4do-0006C7-E0; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:48:28 -0500
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CP3lX-00043s-JP for; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:52:24 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27972 for <>; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 13:52:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CP40g-00026p-Ij for; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:08:03 -0500
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A09E872E3; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 13:51:47 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0610052cbdad78698a29@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20041029083030.GE2249@james> <> <> <> <p07000c0ebdac640b11ba@[]> <>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 13:52:29 -0400
To: Geoff Huston <>, Pete Resnick <>
From: "Karen R. Sollins" <>
Subject: Re: [Rgchairs] thoughs about the IRTF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:48:27 -0500
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: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17

I am in full agreement with the previous voices that have clarified 
the point that IRTF RFCs should be distinctively identified as part 
of the IRTF processes.  There are at least two important and distinct 

1. These are intended to be working papers, requests for comments, 
etc.  It is important that the broad audience out the broad audience 
out there treat them differently.  Too often any RFC is read as a 
"standard".  So, not only should the name be different, but perhaps 
there should be more boilerplate text that clarifies what they are 
(not just an individual submission).

2. This set of documents represents part of the IRTF process and 
contribution.  As such, it is important to identify that, because it 
is part of the definition of the IRTF and its WGs.


At 10:41 AM +1100 11/2/04, Geoff Huston wrote:
>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 
>    Geoff
>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

Rgchairs mailing list