Subject: [Rfcplusplus] IRTF stream considerations

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:26:12 -0400

(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

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 19:53:13 +0200

Hi Allison and thanks.  I'd like to test you on one point:

On 11.07.18 19:26, Allison Mankin wrote:
> 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. 
>

What would have been your preferred handling of the human rights
considerations work?  Is that closer to a CFRG recommendation or a new
Thing?  Please keep in mind that many of us were comfortable with that
document going out through the IRTF as it was, precisely because it
WASN'T an IETF document.

Eliot

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:09:13 -0400

Hi Eliot, I see HRPC as a New Thing (though it need not be so forever). It
mingles social/political science research with protocol research.

There’s another angle on how we handled the HRPC research considerations
document, as well, which is that IRTF can have more varied consenses.
RG/IRSG consensus can be different in scope from the IETF-wide scope of
IETF LC/IESG Evaluation.

On Wednesday, 11 July 2018, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:

> document going out through the IRTF as it was, precisely because it WASN'T
> an IETF document.
>
> Eliot
>

---

From: "Aaron Falk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:23:19 -0400

Hi Allison-

Can you clarify whether you are proposing to end the IRTF RFC stream 
when this new series is created or supplementing it with another, more 
academically oriented stream?  If the former, do you believe all IRTF 
documents can be published either as IETF RFCs or the new type?  (I 
would find that surprising.)

--aaron

On 11 Jul 2018, at 13:26, Allison Mankin wrote:

> crypto
> brand. I
> It

> _______________________________________________
> Rfcplusplus mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus

---

From: "Aaron Falk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:25:26 -0400

Sorry, I forgot to mention that I think a "open, academically reviewed 
proceedings/journal" is a great thing and will be good for the IRTF and 
the IETF.

--aaron

---

From: "Diego R. Lopez" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 18:25:35 +0000

Hi,

And, as shepherd of an IRTF document awaiting IEG review, what would be the fate of those in the queue?

Be goode,

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr2lopez/

e-mail: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Tel:         +34 913 129 041
Mobile:  +34 682 051 091
----------------------------------

On 11/07/2018, 20:23, "Rfcplusplus on behalf of Aaron Falk" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> on behalf of [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Hi Allison-

Can you clarify whether you are proposing to end the IRTF RFC stream when this new series is created or supplementing it with another, more academically oriented stream? If the former, do you believe all IRTF documents can be published either as IETF RFCs or the new type? (I would find that surprising.)

--aaron

On 11 Jul 2018, at 13:26, Allison Mankin wrote:
(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.

   Brian

________________________________

Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:26:37 -0400

Hi, Aaron,

What would be examples of the surprising?

I don’t see an IRTF more academic stream as being in the strict mold of
conferences and journals, if that is the issue.

Allison

On Wednesday, 11 July 2018, Aaron Falk <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Allison-
>
> Can you clarify whether you are proposing to end the IRTF RFC stream when
> this new series is created or supplementing it with another, more
> documents can be published either as IETF RFCs or the new type? (I would
> find that surprising.)
>
> --aaron
>
> publication venue for IRTF output. But this is an IETF BOF so all we can
> do is discuss how IETF stream documents are published.
>

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:28:13 -0400

Diego,

That’s something I expect we’d resolve in the IRSG business meetings.

Allison

On Wednesday, 11 July 2018, Diego R. Lopez <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> e-mail: [email-masked]
>
> Tel:         +34 913 129 041
>
> Mobile:  +34 682 051 091
>
> On 11/07/2018, 20:23, "Rfcplusplus on behalf of Aaron Falk" <
> [email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Allison-
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario,
> puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso
> exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el
> destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización,
> divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de
> la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos
> que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su
> destrucción.
>
> The information contained in this transmission is privileged and
> confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or
> entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the
> sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete
> it.
>
> Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário,
> pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo
> da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário
> indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou
> cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente.
> Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique
> imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição
>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:28:35 -0400

--On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 13:26 -0400 Allison Mankin
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> 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.

Allison,

Three questions: 

How are ANRW papers published now?  From a quick search, it
looks as if at least one or two of the proceedings volumes were
published by ACM via their usual methods and using their
distribution methods.  Is that generally true?

Is the IRTF's plan to continue using the RFC Editor function for
editing, archiving, and distribution or do you anticipate going
off in some completely different direction?

Have you done an analysis of the challenges associated with
setting up a new academic journal, independent of known
publishers of such things, and getting them accepted and into
libraries, etc.  Things have changed (and, from what I
understand, gotten harder) but I was involved with trying to set
one up via the UN some years ago and, after a lot of advice from
key institutions and a lot of frustration, determined that we
needed to "sell" the journal to an existing major academic
journal publisher.   I don't know if the same situation would
exist with IRTF publications, but it seems to me that the
question is worth asking.

best,
    john

---

From: "Aaron Falk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:32:56 -0400

Well, I'm not following any RGs so my view is slightly dated but there 
was a time when the ICCRG was evaluating congestion control proposals 
and making recommendations on safety before the TSV wgs could consider 
them.  More generally, there's a tradition of the IRTF considering 
topics where it's not clear whether they are research or engineering 
having a home.  I thought of the common publication format and venue as 
being rather helpful for migrating from one to the other.

--aaron

On 11 Jul 2018, at 14:26, Allison Mankin wrote:

>> when

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 11:59:27 -0700

> distribution methods.  Is that generally true?

Without taking a position on ANRW, ISOC already runs ISOC NDSS, so
presumably cloning that wouldn't be particularly difficult.

-Ekr

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:05:27 -0600

+1!

On 7/11/18 12:25 PM, Aaron Falk wrote:
>     when this new series is created or supplementing it with another,
>     more academically oriented stream? If the former, do you believe all
>     IRTF documents can be published either as IETF RFCs or the new type?
>     (I would find that surprising.)
> 
>     --aaron
> 
>         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. 
> 
>         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.
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 11:49:46 +1200

Hi Allison,

> for the IRTF. So, IRTF is very much an interested party in this BOF.

Well, that's good to hear, but nevertheless it is an IETF BOF and that
limits its direct input to IESG decision making (certainly not its
range of topics). What the IRTF decides to do is its own choice, of course.

Personally (IRTF participant hat on) I think this is a very good thing
for the IRTF to discuss, and I look forward to the discussion when
it's brought to the IRTF as a whole. (I'm assuming this is not something
the IRSG believes it can decide on its own.) Others have mentioned
some of the obvious questions about the boundary between this and
the RFC series.

> and pseudo-academics contribute very well.

Yes. In my mind there's a distinction between IRTF output that is indeed
"just" research, and IRTF output that directly feeds into IETF follow-up.
Of course, where the line lies is a judgment call.
 
> responds to Brian Carpenter’s comment quoted below).

Since I haven't seen this discussed on IRTF lists, don't you mean that this
is a likely proposal from the IRSG for discussion?

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 19:46:55 -0500

On 7/11/18 6:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> range of topics).

This assertion (which you've raised before) doesn't seem to serve what I 
suspect your goals are very well.

Based on this statement and similar statements you've made elsewhere, it 
looks like you're trying to assert that there is no existing venue in 
which the topic of multi-stream RFC governance can be discussed with the 
community, and so the conversation simply cannot happen. Given that the 
alternative would appear to be for the IAB to act without community 
input (or perhaps with the limited input provided by an IAB workshop), 
I'm not sure why you're pressing this point so hard. Not only would that 
kind of action set what I think would be bad precedent, but it would 
probably not have the outcome you desire.

Or perhaps I've misunderstood: do you think that there is a venue in 
which multi-stream RFC governance topics can be discussed with the 
various stakeholders, and that this simply isn't it?

/a

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 13:33:02 +1200

On 12/07/2018 12:46, Adam Roach wrote:
> community,

I'm saying that there's no clearly defined and announced venue for that,
except possibly [email-masked]. So if there are proposals
that affect multiple streams or the series as a whole, there is some
work to be done to ensure that all interested parties are involved.
I'm not saying that's impossible, but it's more than convening an IETF
BOF.

> and so the conversation simply cannot happen. 

It can happen if planned that way. IMHO it has happened, for example,
for the new RFC format, and clearly all the RFC streams were involved
in formally setting up the streams some years ago.

> Given that the 

It wouldn't, because if a number of people felt that the IAB had exceeded
its authority, the outcome would indeed be painful for everybody.

> various stakeholders, and that this simply isn't it?

That, yes. (Also, I don't understand why the RFC Series Oversight
Committee isn't heavily involved in this discussion.)

   Brian

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 22:37:18 -0500

On 7/11/18 8:33 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> except possibly [email-masked].

The BOF was announced on that list 
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2018-June/010237.html), 
and the IETF itself is a non-member organization, so any such interested 
parties are free to participate. You seem to be implying that some set 
of interested parties is being excluded from the conversation in some 
way, but I'm not sure evidence supports that position.

...
> for the new RFC format...

The RFC format work was an IETF BOF too [1] (three, actually), and those 
specific BOFs resulted in input that went well beyond impacts on the 
IETF stream. I believe your original statement about the scope of 
discussions that can take place in such a venue is more refuted than 
supported by the precedent you cite.

/a

____
[1] https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/BofIETF83

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:54:24 +1200

> supported by the precedent you cite.

There's a real difference, in my opinion, in that the definition of
the streams was a codification of existing practice, and the format
update was something people have been requesting for many years.
Neither of them showed any signs of being fundamentally contentious.
This time, we've seen a much more radical proposal which, if carried
forward, would fundamentally change the series. In that case you can't
duck the question of authority and who calls consensus.

   Brian

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 00:09:33 -0500

> Neither of them showed any signs of being fundamentally contentious.

Your understanding of the potential, in the IETF 83 timeframe, for 
controversy around the RFC format change is completely different than 
mine. I recall the issue coming up repeatedly at plenaries and in 
hallways with well more than a hint of contention surrounding it.

We are free to disagree on our recollections here, of course, but if you 
check the minutes for the administrative plenary at IETF 79 -- a scant 
four meetings before the RFCFORM BOF -- Stewart Bryant used the phrase 
"this is a controversial subject" to describe this exact topic. The 
benefit of time between now and then may make it seem far less so in 
2018, but that has little bearing on the fact that it *was* expected to 
be controversial by many at the time.

> duck the question of authority and who calls consensus.

It feels like you're trying to move the goalposts. Your original 
statement was that this is "an IETF BOF and that limits its direct input 
to IESG decision making." If I carefully parse what you've written 
above, it seems that you want to amend that to only apply when some 
(potentially small) subset of the IETF population thinks it won't be 
contentious, but that doesn't seem quantifiable enough to be a rule.

/a

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 17:40:51 +1200

> be controversial by many at the time.

The details, for sure, and I am 100% certain that when the new format and
its tools are released there will be much noise too. But I really see this
as a fundamentally different type of controversy and proposed change. If
you don't agree, we'd better agree to differ.

> contentious, but that doesn't seem quantifiable enough to be a rule.

No, I'm not trying to move goalposts (although where they are is still
unclear to me). I'm trying to say that the IETF, and its leadership,
if they reach a consensus that changes *non-IETF* usage of the RFC series,
simply can't impose that. What the IETF could do, if such was the consensus,
is take that consensus to the rest of the RFC-producing community and ask
whether they agree, or have modifications to propose, or disagree totally.

It seems to me that the goal posts for reaching consensus in the IETF
are fairly well known, and some of us will end up in the rough as always.
But for the RFC-producing community as whole, I currently have no idea
where the goal posts are. To quote my draft "How to reach out to this
community is in itself a big question."

Regards
    Brian

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 01:26:06 -0500

On 7/12/18 12:40 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> unclear to me).

We appear to be talking past each other, and for that I apologize. I 
used non-literal language that assumed a shared cultural context, and 
that's bad form on my part. I meant the term "moving the goalposts" as a 
reference to the informal logical fallacy [1], not some metaphor 
regarding reaching consensus or finding interested participants.

> community is in itself a big question."

It's not exactly tenable to hypothesize some unidentifiable group of 
uncontacted peoples with an interest in the topic and conclude that 
things must stay now just as they ever have been as a consequence. That 
rationale would have blocked the format work as well. We allowed the 
rfc-interest mailing list to stand in as a proxy for that community in 
that case -- it would be inconsistent to claim that we can't use it in 
this one.

/a

____
[1] 
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving-the-Goalposts

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 08:57:47 -0700

Slightly off-topic, but perhaps important
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:54 PM, Brian E Carpenter <

> Neither of them showed any signs of being fundamentally contentious.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamentally contentious", but both
proposals had many months of discussions and, in some parts, quite serious
opposition.  Contentious would have been a word I would personally have
used to describe the format update, for example, and I'm not sure why you
would disagree.

> duck the question of authority and who calls consensus.
I'll note that the proposed experiment borrows many elements of the format
discussion's process.  While there is no question that the final format
documents were published by the IAB, the face-to-face discussions were all
hosted at IETF plenary meetings, for the same reason:  it's the place where
the largest number of stream contributors are together at the same place
and the same time.  It also borrows the rollback method inherent in the
format proposal (double RFC publication, first with trial format, then with
final format).  If you have other methods in mind that would produce more
transparent discussion or more opportunity to test the results as we go,
I'd personally be interested in hearing them.  But this BoF follows the
pattern we have used recently, at least to my eyes.

regards,

Ted

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 10:50:13 +1200

> regarding reaching consensus or finding interested participants.

Understood, but sometimes, when you reach an initial conclusion, another
difficulty then appears. That isn't so much moving the goalposts as
discovering new goalposts further along.
 
> things must stay now just as they ever have been as a consequence.

No, and that wasn't at all what I intended to imply. What I mean is
that *if* the IETF decides, by its own process, that the IETF wants
to make a change, *then* the next stage must be a serious effort to
discuss it with the rest of the community. Currently, we don't have a
clear method for that.

(fwiw, I would like to see some changes - but not the one
implied by draft-thomson-rfcplusplus-label-00).

((fwiw, I'm now very close to entering radio silence until I reach Monteal))

   Brian

> That 
> .

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 11:00:51 +1200

Ted,

> But this BoF follows the pattern we have used recently, at least to my eyes.

Yes. The qualitative difference is that the proposal on the table amounts
to *chucking out* several RFC streams, and that is (IMHO) so fundamental
that a major and as yet undefined effort is needed to discover whether
this is acceptable to the whole Internet technical community.

The previous changes were administrative by comparison.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 18:16:35 -0700

Brian,

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> to *chucking out* several RFC streams,

Quite simply, that's not the proposal on the table, and it's not likely to
be a proposal that emerges from the BoF.  While I am not speaking for the
IAB on this, it is my personal impression that the IAB is not only not
likely to "chuck out" its own stream, but it has no interest in ending the
financial and other support given to all the streams.

This is a proposal to experimentally re-label the output, with a clear
rollback if the experiment doesn't succeed.  Critiquing the proposal is
certainly a valid part of any BoF, and what emerges may be very different,
but your characterization is simply not supported by the BoF proposal in
any way.

Ted

> and that is (IMHO) so fundamental

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 13:45:52 +1200

But the draft we are supposed to be discussing says:

>>    This documents proposes reserving the "RFC" label for those documents
>>    that are the product of the Internet Standards Process [RFC2026].

The BOF text in the wiki says:

>> This would allow "RFC" to be reserved for standards-related documents,

If that isn't "chucking out", I don't know what it is.

(The theory that this is a reversible change is very dubious, as
others have pointed out.)

Now I really must pack a suitcase.

   Brian

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 20:30:43 -0700

> others have pointed out.)
Describing the theory that it is reversible as doubtful is a fair comment.
It may be difficult to roll back a change, and that's well worth
discussing.  But that's different from asserting that the proposal intends
any stream to be "chucked out", in any of the meanings I find
<https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/chucking+out>.  They are not being
closed, defunded, or sent off to other organizations; they continue to use
the same facilities, represent the same streams, and carry on with the same
managers. The proposed difference is in the label which is applied during
the experiment, nothing more.

Arguing against some other proposal comes close to either failing to credit
your colleagues with the plain of their words or arguing against a
strawman, neither of which I hope you intend.

>
> Travel safely, and I look forward to seeing you in Montreal.

Ted

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 17:12:27 +1200

> The proposed difference is in the label which is applied during

They would be denied the use of the abbreviation RFC and an RFC number
in the series that was started in 1969, and presumably therefore
of the ISSN number and a DOI in the same family.

That is chucking out of the RFC series as far as I'm concerned. It
couldn't be plainer.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 07:34:22 -0700

Howdy,

> That is chucking out of the RFC series as far as I'm concerned. It

Well, language is a funny thing, and it may well evolve to where this
meaning is common.  Who knows?  It may even evolve to the point where the
barkeeps in Westerns have the bouncers experimentally relabel bad guys
through plate glass windows for comic effect.*

In the mean time, I must disagree with this characterization.  As an author
of a document recently adopted by one of the relevant streams, I don't
think relabeling the document would chuck me out of the conversation, and,
even if it has the effect of muting my voice, the aim of the experiment is
to rollback the status of any documents which experience that impact.

regards,

Ted

*At the time of writing the Urban Dictionary had no direct entry for
"chucking out", so there is the opportunity to enter "experimentally
relabel" there, if you care to.  At the worst, it would mean you could buy
a mug with your definition on it.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 16:52:20 -0400

--On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 13:26 -0400 Allison Mankin
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> 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. 
>...

Allison,

I'd like to suggest a slightly different way to think about
this, one that might make things easier for you and the IRTF and
that might slightly reduce the complexity of the BOF discussion.
I have no skin in the IRTF or its situation -- this is just an
attempt to be constructive.

As far as I can tell, nothing prevents, or has ever prevented,
the IRTF, or individual IRTF participants, from publishing a
document wherever would best suit the purposes and content of
the document and their personal and professional goals (either
individually or in groups).  If you decide the best way to
accomplish that is to create a new journal, I don't know whose
permission you would need, but I'd hope that the IAB, IASA, and
ISOC would all be supportive.  Having been a bit involved some
years ago with a journal that had gotten a poor reputation and
whose management tried to re-label it in the hope of fixing
that, many of the people who make decisions about academic
credibility and impact are fairly smart and a completely new
journal is more likely to be effective in a reasonable period of
time than trying to relaunch part of the RFC Series under
different labels while carrying around some artifacts from the
old series, but that is your call, not mine.

It seems to me that none of that is a problem for the BOF - you
should just do your thing, presumably with the support of the
relevant community.  

Where there is an overlap (and maybe an issue for the BOF) is
when Research Groups want to publish documents that are, as
others have suggested, much more of the character of engineering
work that is pre-IETF or about ready to be pushing into the
IETF.    It isn't clear you would want that material in a
significantly more academic journal or that trying to hold such
work to a high academic journal standard would benefit either
the work or the journal.  But, with the understanding that I
have very little idea about what has been going on in the last
several years, my recollection is that RGs doing work like that
were typically developed in conjunction with the IESG and,
indeed, could often be said to be doing work that was more or
less commissioned by the IETF.  In those situations, tie
importance of a clear distinction between an Informational
document providing a description of preliminary, or
problem-space-defining, work produced by an RG or an IETF WG may
be relatively small and creating a document-labeling distinction
might actually be more misleading and confusing than simply
publishing the documents in the same series with appropriate
notes.  Indeed, if RGs of that sort were to be told that,
because they were RGs, they couldn't publish alongside the work
that would presumably follow based on the work they had done, I
have to wonder if we would see an upswing in requests for
AD-Sponsored publication of documents that really came out of
those RGs (AFAIK, we have no rules that would prevent such
requests).  Or those RGs might seek to recharacterize themselves
as IETF WGs with a problem exploration agenda -- the boundary
between the two was often, at least when I was closer to the
situation, always a little vague.

Be that is a may, it seems to me that the key question becomes
whether there are RGs whose output is not suitable for
publication in a high-quality academic journal (whether run by
"us"or by others and is still not suitable as direct input to
present or future IETF efforts.    If they exist, how would you
characterize them and would the effort of trying to do so inform
the distinctions you are trying to make.

best,
    john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 03:28:15 +1200

Well, in British, chucking out is what the bouncer does to you when you annoy the other drinkers in a pub. I don't think it's a bad analogy. Anyway, let's aim at a polite and productive discussion Monday afternoon.

Regards
   Brian

On 14/07/2018 02:34, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Howdy,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> Well, language is a funny thing, and it may well evolve to where this meaning is common.  Who knows?  It may even evolve to the point where the barkeeps in Westerns have the bouncers experimentally relabel bad guys through plate glass windows for comic effect.* 
> 
> In the mean time, I must disagree with this characterization.  As an author of a document recently adopted by one of the relevant streams, I don't think relabeling the document would chuck me out of the conversation, and, even if it has the effect of muting my voice, the aim of the experiment is to rollback the status of any documents which experience that impact.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Ted
> 
> *At the time of writing the Urban Dictionary had no direct entry for "chucking out", so there is the opportunity to enter "experimentally relabel" there, if you care to.  At the worst, it would mean you could buy a mug with your definition on it.
> 
>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 15:26:36 -0400

First, on the primary topic of this thread, I believe thinking what
would be the best publication approach for the IRTF would be
a welcome activity, to optimise the channel(s) that they best
serve the researchers participating in IRTF.

Then on some other topics:

Brian wrote:

> What I mean is

I agree.

But want to note that discussion on rfc-interest list, discussions at
BOFs during IETF meetings, the plenary, and the like have 
traditionally been tools that we use when topics related to the 
RFC series are being discussed. Obviously, an effort should be
made to reach as far as possible when there’s a topic for
discussion. And as we know, a BOF or other gathering at
an IETF is not the final decision place, no matter what
gets discussed we’ll have to continue online for some more.

Many people talked about:

> controversial changes

FWIW, my perception of some of the past discussions is that
there was at least some level of controversy. You could perhaps
argue whether that was lower or higher level than on current
topic, but people seem to care about the RFC series and don’t
always have the same opinions. Which is a good thing :-)

Jari