On 6/26/2018 7:59 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 10:33 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, although Randy's main point, at least as I understood it,
was that authors should be citing important papers in the
external literature that provide the foundations for whatever
is being done in proposed RFCs. "Don't pretend, even by
omission, to have invented ideas that were not yours" would
also be a good comment for the Tao and/or assorted documents
on appropriate behavior.
Quite apart from the ethical aspect, such citations would help
anyone needing to do a prior art search.
And, of course, if we ever have a resurgence of the discussions
some years ago about making the RFC Series more academically
credible, getting those citations in is critical. So, yes,
lots of reasons including, but not limited to, the ones that
Randy identified.
john
I don't disagree, but as Heather pointed out, there's a cost to
everything, either paid for in cash via the IETF/ISOC coffers, or in the
sweat of volunteers. As an adult organization (which is sort of
different from an organization of adults), when identifying places where
we want change, we really should be in the business of figuring how to
pay for those changes (or at least what we're willing to pay for most)
rather than just assuming there's zero cost.
To resolve the current identified issue on the cheap - perhaps one of
the interested parties would care to author a BCP on Plagarism, Source
Credits and Cites that the IETF could adopt and refer to during
document shepherding and last call?
Let me raise a slightly different but related point: The IETF is
currently in the business of creating standards, not academic
publications. If we want that to change, the IETF will fundamentally
have to change. I'm not sure about this, but it seems to me there is
an upswing in the number of IDs and documents only peripherally related
to the IETF's standardization process. Some are related to the IRTF
process, some are semi-academic analyses of IETF related protocols and
processes, some just seem to be dropped into the ID process just to have
some place to put them. It's still a pretty small set, but it *feels*
like it's growing and I sometimes wonder if the trend will lead the IETF
to a place the IETF is not prepared to go.
Later, Mike
