On 27/06/2018 14:02, Michael StJohns wrote: > 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? I feel I'm tooting my own trombone, but that is one of the points made in my draft cited a few messages ago. > 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. Another toot: Craig Partridge and I did tackle that topic in CCR a few years ago. Our view was that the RFC review process is at least as good as those of most journals and conferences, so we weren't arguing for change, just for recognition. (https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1672315) > 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. I don't think you're referring to IETF stream documents, but certainly IRTF and Independent stream documents might be of that nature. I don't think the numbers are large, though, and the IETF has no exclusivity over the RFC series. Regards Brian
