Hi Fernando,
On 2/24/21 10:13 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
[…]
that the Working Group can get ideas from. For instance, a few years
ago, we have had several academics present their work in TAPS, and that
was definitely a lot of helpful input. Not sure how common this style of
contribution is, but I think it does happen especially when a smaller WG
is in an "early stage" where they benefit from a lot of input and ideas.
(Of course, a lot of work that is relevant to IETF Working Groups is
getting presented at IRTF sessions, e.g., MAPRG, IRTF Open, or at ANRW.
But I can understand if you consider these out of scope for your
document.)
I think what you describe is definitely within scope.
That said, in my experienve, in many cases groups seem to receive
points for peer-reviewed conference papers, but not for
IRTF/IETF-style of participation, unfortunately. So making it to the
IETF will typically be harder (in terms of funding) than e.g.
attending to an IEEE or ACM conference.
That is true. With ANRW, you at least get to present a short paper or
poster at a workshop, so that's a step in the right direction.
Good point about publications. RFCs are publications, too, so there is
definitely some ROI in (co-)authoring an RFC as an academic. However,
usually the entire process takes much longer than writing academic
papers. And I'm not sure how academia at large values RFCs relative to
papers, but at least in the part that I know, I would say they're valued.
I think some academic institutions explicitly value it if researchers
give "input to practice", demonstrate the applicability of their work,
etc. So that could be used as a reason for presenting at IETF meetings,
too, though most academic institutions would not understand the
difference between IETF and IRTF sessions.
You're welcome and good luck with the next revision!
Best,
Theresa
