On 26-Feb-21 06:29, Lars Eggert wrote: > Hi, > > On 2021-2-25, at 18:16, Theresa Enghardt <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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. > > that was actually the main motivation for collocating ANRW always with the IETF - typically, academics can justify conference and workshop travel much more easily than standards travel. > >> 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. > > One thing we did to increase the value of RFCs to academics was to assign them DOIs, which at least for universities in some geos is a prerequisite to even recognizing RFCs as academic output. Nevertheless, it is in general hard to get RFCs recognised as valuable for tenure and promotion purposes, compared to more traditional publication streams such as highly-rated journals. That's one reason we did https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1672308.1672315 but I'm not sure it has had much impact. Brian
