Network Working Group S. Floyd, Ed.

Network Working Group S. Floyd, Ed.
Request for Comments: 4440 V. Paxson, Ed.
Category: Informational A. Falk, Ed.
IAB
March 2006

IAB Thoughts on the Role of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)

Status of This Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

This document is an Internet Architecture Board (IAB) report on the
role of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), both on its own and
in relationship to the IETF. This document evolved from a discussion
within the IAB as part of a process of appointing a new chair of the
IRTF.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. The Relationship between the IRTF, the IAB, and the IETF ........2
2.1. Differences between IRTF and IETF Groups ...................3
2.2. Research Groups as Non-blocking Entities ...................3
3. The Range of IRTF Groups ........................................4
4. Issues for the Future ...........................................5
4.1. IRTF Groups and Network Architecture .......................5
4.2. The Relationship between the IETF and the IRTF .............6
4.3. Relationships between the Research and Development
Communities ................................................8
4.3.1. What's in a Name: On the Name `Research Group' .....8
4.4. The RFC Track for IRTF Documents ...........................9
5. Security Considerations .........................................9
6. Acknowledgements ................................................9
7. Normative References ...........................................10
8. Informative References .........................................10

Floyd, et al. Informational [Page 1]

RFC 4440 IAB Thoughts on IRTF Role March 2006

1. Introduction

As part of the process of appointing a new chair of the Internet
Research Task Force (IRTF), the IAB considered the future role of the
IRTF both on its own and in relationship to the IETF. The IAB has
expanded this discussion into this IAB report on the role of the
IRTF, and circulated this document for wider community review. (As
one result of this discussion, Aaron Falk was appointed the new chair
of the IRTF in March 2005.)

2. The Relationship between the IRTF, the IAB, and the IETF

Before 1989, the IAB (then called the Internet Activities Board)
oversaw a number of task forces. In 1989, organizational changes
were made to coalesce these task forces into two groups, the IETF and
the IRTF. The IRTF was tasked to consider long-term research
problems in the Internet, and the IETF was to concentrate on short-
to medium-term engineering issues related to the Internet. At this
time, all of the task forces except the IETF were restructured as
IRTF research groups. For example, the End-to-End Task Force became
the IRTF's End-to-End Research Group (E2ERG) and the Privacy &
Security Task Force became the IRTF's Privacy & Security Research
Group (PSRG) [IABWebPages] [RFC3160] [E2ERG].

Much of the early participation in the IETF as well as in the IRTF
was from the academic and research communities. (We don't have a
citation from this, but a look at the members of the IAB from the
1980's and early 1990's shows IAB members from institutions such as
MIT, UCLA, BBN, UCL, SDSC, and the like, while IAB members from the
last few years were more likely to list their organizations at the
time of service as Cisco, IBM, Microsoft, Nokia, Qualcomm, and
Verisign [IABWebPages]. We expect that a study of authors of RFCs
would show a similar trend over time, with fewer authors from the
academic and research communities, and more authors from the
commercial world.) While the IRTF has continued to have significant
participation from the academic and research communities, the IETF
has focused on standards development and has become dominated by the
needs of the commercial sector.

The IRTF has generally focused on investigation into areas that are
not considered sufficiently mature for IETF standardization, as well
as investigation of areas that are not specifically the subject of
standardization, but could guide future standards efforts.

The IRTF Research Groups guidelines and procedures are described in
RFC 2014. The IRTF Chair is appointed by the Internet Architecture
Board (IAB), and charters IRTF research groups (RGs) in consultation
with the Internet Research Steering Group (IRSG) and with approval of

Floyd, et al. Informational [Page 2]

RFC 4440 IAB Thoughts on IRTF Role March 2006

the IAB. The chairs of the RGs comprise the main part of the IRSG,
although the IRTF Chair can also appoint at-large members to the
IRSG.

As RFC 2014 states, the IRTF does not set standards. While
technologies developed in an RG can be brought to the IETF for
possible standardization, "Research Group input carries no more
weight than other community input, and goes through the same
standards setting process as any other proposal" [RFC2014] (Section
1.1). This is necessary to ensure that RGs don't become a part of
the standards process itself.

RFC 2014 continues to say that "since the products are research
results, not Internet standards, consensus of the group is not
required" [RFC2014] (Section 3). However, the NameSpace Research
Group was one RG that did require consensus decisions; this group was
chartered exclusively to make a recommendation to the IETF.

RFC 2014 goes on to describe Research Group operation, meeting
management, staff roles, group documents, and the like. This
document is not a revision of RFC 2014, but instead a more wide-
ranging discussion of the possible roles of the IRTF.

The past history of IRTF Chairs is as follows: Dave Clark
(1989-1992); Jon Postel (1992-1995); Abel Weinrib (1995-1999); Erik
Huizer (1999-2001); Vern Paxson (2001-2005).

2.1. Differences between IRTF and IETF Groups

Two key differences between IRTF research groups and IETF working
groups are that IRTF groups are not trying to produce standards of
any kind and that the output of IRTF groups does not require
consensus within the RG, or broad consensus from the IETF.

In some cases, IRTF groups have acted as research groups with minimal
constraints, creating a community for discussing research proposals,
with mature proposals "tossed over the fence" to an IETF group for
standardization. The Reliable Multicast Research Group (RMRG) was an
example of such a group, with standardization efforts in the Reliable
Multicast Transport working group (RMT).

2.2. Research Groups as Non-blocking Entities

As stated in RFC 2014, the IRTF does not set standards. It is
important that, unless clearly specified otherwise by the IESG,
research groups do not act as gateways controlling the advancement of
standards, experimental RFCs, or informational RFCs produced by
working groups in the IETF.

Floyd, et al. Informational [Page 3]

RFC 4440 IAB Thoughts on IRTF Role March 2006

Similarly, as stated in RFC 2014, existing research groups also do
not necessarily prevent the creation of new research groups in
related areas. Of course, when considering a proposal for a new
research group, it is perfectly appropriate for the IRTF and the IAB
to consider the relationship with existing research groups. However,
"multiple Research Groups working in the same general area may be
formed if appropriate" [RFC2014] (Sections 1.1 and 2.1).

3. The Range of IRTF Groups

There is a wide range of ways that IRTF groups can currently be
structured. Some of the most significant are:

* Membership: Groups might be open or closed (in terms of
membership). The End-to-End Research Group and the NameSpace
Research Group are both past examples of closed RGs.

* Timescale: While RGs are generally long-term, groups could be
either long-term (ongoing) or short-term with a specific goal; the
NameSpace Research Group is an example of an RG that was chartered
as a short-lived group [NSRG]. We note that RFC 2014, written in
1996, assumed that RGs would be long-term: "Research Groups are
expected to have the stable long term membership needed to promote
the development of research collaboration and teamwork in exploring
research issues" [RFC2014] (Section 1).

* Relationship to IETF: Groups can include a goal of producing
proposals to be considered in the IETF (e.g., the Anti-Spam
Research Group) or can be independent of any current or proposed
work in the IETF (e.g., the Delay-Tolerant Networking Research
Group).

* Range of activities: IRTF activities could consist not only of
research groups and their associated meetings, workshops, and other
activities, but also of separate workshops or other one-time
activities organized directly by the IRTF. To date, however, the
IRTF has not organized such activities other than in the form of
BOFs at IETF meetings.

* Both research and development: IRTF groups can focus on traditional
research activities, but they could also focus on development, on
tool-building, on operational testing or protocol interoperability
testing, or on other activities that don't fit the framework of a
working group (WG). Instead of having a specific plan for the
evolution of the IRTF, we think that this will have to be explored
over time, with discussions between the IRTF Chair, the IRSG, and
the IAB (and with the IESG as appropriate).

Floyd, et al. Informational [Page 4]

RFC 4440 IAB Thoughts on IRTF Role March 2006

As discussed above, the IAB believes that the range of research
groups could be expanded further, in terms of timescale, relationship
to the IETF, range of activities, and range between research and
development.

4. Issues for the Future

This section discusses some of the issues in the future evolution of
the IRTF. A key issue, discussed in Section 4.1 below, concerns how
the IRTF can best contribute on questions of network architecture.

Similar issues could be raised in how the IRTF can best contribute to
incubating technology for later development in the IETF. We
emphasize that we are not proposing that the IRTF should become a de
facto holding point for technologies that are not making clear
progress in the WGs. Some technologies might not make progress in
WGs because of key open issues, making an RG an appropriate step.

Other technologies, however, might not make progress in WGs because
of a lack of interest, inherent design weaknesses, or some other
reason that does not justify moving it into an RG instead.

4.1. IRTF Groups and Network Architecture

One interest of the IAB is how progress is made on issues of network
architecture. This includes help in developing and evaluating new
architectures, and in understanding the evolving architecture and
architectural issues of the decentralized, deployed Internet
infrastructure. This also includes developing tools that could be
used in the above tasks.

The spectrum of potential activities for IRTF groups ranges from the
visionary to the specific, including the following:

* Architecture: Where are we, and where do we go from here?

* Incubation: We think we know where to go, but we don't yet have
the tools to get there.

* Problem focus: We have some specific problems to solve or potential
solutions to evaluate.

Some RGs have addressed broad architectural issues, with a mixed set
of results; examples of such RGs include the End-to-End Research
Group, the NameSpace Research Group, and the Routing Research Group.
For other RGs (e.g., the Host Identity Protocol Research Group), the
focus of the group is to study a specific proposal, with wider
architectural issues raised at workshops held by the RG. Finally,

Floyd, et al. Informational [Page 5]

RFC 4440 IAB Thoughts on IRTF Role March 2006

some RGs are in specific areas with well-defined boundaries, with
topics that don't have broad impact on the wider Internet
architecture.

Where an IRTF RG lies on the spectrum of possible activities depends
in part on where the IETF and the field itself lie. For example, in
areas such as network management where the IETF community has doubts
or concerns about where we should be going with management
technology, it would be useful for the IETF to be able to look to the
IRTF for architectural evaluation. In contrast, in areas where the
architectural approach is better established, an RG with an
incubation approach might be more appropriate. Finally, where many
pieces of the puzzle are in place, but some significant problems
remain, an RG with a problem focus might make sense.

For those RGs with an architectural focus, it would not be
appropriate for the IAB to charter an RG to come up with *the*
architectural perspective on some topic; any such result would
necessarily have to pass through the wide feedback and consensus
procedures of the IETF. However, it is appropriate for the IAB to
ask an RG for exploration and discussion of an architectural issue;
e.g., the IAB has asked the Routing Research Group for feedback about
research objectives for inter-domain routing improvements
[IABMinutes]. It is also possible for RGs to make recommendations on
architectural or other issues, with or without the request of the
IAB; e.g., the End-to-End Research Group [RFC2309] and the Crypto
Forum Research Group have both made recommendations to the general
IETF community. However, some RGs function better as a breeding
ground for ideas, and not as a consensus-building community. For
example, while the NameSpace Research Group was "an invitational
research group chartered exclusively to make a recommendation to the
IETF" [NSRG], the group never achieved a clear consensus.

While the IAB doesn't have clear answers on the evolving role of the
IRTF in addressing and understanding open architectural issues, this
is an area that will be explored in the upcoming years, in
collaboration with the IRTF Chair. One of the goals of the IAB is to
make more use of the IRTF in investigating architectural issues.

4.2. The Relationship between the IETF and the IRTF

Another area that could use more attention is making the relationship
between the IETF and the IRTF more productive. For many (though not
all) of the research groups in the IRTF, part of the power of the RG
lies in its relationship to the IETF. Of current and recent RGs, for
example, this is true of the Anti-Spam (ASRG), the Crypto Forum
(CFRG), Host Identity Protocol (HIP), and a number of others.

Floyd, et al. Informational [Page 6]

RFC 4440 IAB Thoughts on IRTF Role March 2006

The interchange between the IETF and the IRTF could be improved in
both directions: from the IETF to the IRTF in terms of information
about IETF problems that could be helped by further research and
development, and IETF evaluation of RG efforts and direction; and
from the IRTF to the IETF in terms of reports, documents, proposals,
BOFs, and the like. Current paths for this interchange include IRTF
reports at IETF plenary meetings; RG meetings before or after the
IETF, or in one of the scheduled sessions during the IETF; workshops;
and IRTF documents.

One possibility (for some research groups, not for all of them) could
be for an RG to have a design-team-like relationship to the IETF or
to an IETF working group, with an RG charter that includes an
agreement of deliverables, with some notion of the time frame for
those deliverables. An issue that would need to be resolved here is
when is it appropriate for an RG to undertake such a relationship vs.
an IETF WG doing it directly, as is sometimes already done.

We note that as in WGs, RGs are composed of volunteers who make their
own choices of research and engineering topics. RGs are usually
started by a proposal from individuals who want to form the RG.
Thus, it is important to realize that IRTF activity often will not be
viable in the absence of individuals who would like to take on the
particular work, and this tempers the usefulness of IETF WGs
providing input to the IRTF regarding desired IRTF directions or
activities. For example, while the IETF can request specific
research activities from IRTF RGs, results will require individuals
within the RGs willing to undertake this work.

IRTF RGs have been of significant benefit to the IETF; a number of
IETF proposals began as discussions in the End-to-End Research Group,
for example. At the same time, the interchange with RGs can take
significant time and effort from WG chairs and from ADs, sometimes
with little to show for it if the RG's direction is at odds with that
desired by the WG chairs or ADs. One task for the future is to
improve the dialogue between the IETF and the IRTF while not
increasing the load on WG chairs and ADs.

One role of the IRTF could be to open some new communication paths
between the research community and the IETF. Over the last ten
years, as the Internet has grown and matured, and the difficulties of
making changes to the Internet architecture have increased, the
research community's participation in the IETF has dropped. We are
not necessarily expecting to reverse this trend, but it would be good
for the output of the research community to reach the IETF somewhat
more than it does now, and for the research community to hear more
from the IETF.

Floyd, et al. Informational [Page 7]

RFC 4440 IAB Thoughts on IRTF Role March 2006

We would like to shape an IRTF that meets the needs of researchers in
this domain, providing interaction both with other researchers and
with other industry technologists. In this respect, we would like to
see an IRTF that has momentum that is self-sustaining from voluntary
efforts, that undertakes (some) work on topics that align to the
interests of the IETF, and in such a fashion continues to be of
material assistance to the IETF standardization effort. We would
also like to see an IRTF that continues to give thoughtful
consideration and input to the development of the Internet
architecture.

4.3. Relationships between the Research and Development Communities

One of the current and future roles played by the IRTF is that of a
bridge between the research and development communities; the research
community in general is less of an active force in the IETF than it
was in the beginning of the IETF's history. At the risk of resorting
to stereotypes, IETFers sometimes view the network research community
as irrelevant or disconnected from reality, while researchers
sometimes view the IETF as insufficiently thoughtful or as an
unproductive place for investing one's research energies. There is
also a natural difference in timescales, with the IETF more focused
on near- to medium-term issues, and researchers often more focused on
longer-term issues.

Unfortunately, disconnections between the research and development
communities can hurt both the research and the development. Just as
one example, from "Failure to Thrive: QoS and the Culture of
Operational Networking" [B03]: "Remarkable intelligence and energy
have been lavished upon the architectural design of QoS, but much
less attention has been devoted to careful analysis of the relevant
problem space from an operational or economic perspective. This
discrepancy is symptomatic of a broken (or attenuated) feedback loop
between network operations and research." Thus, one potential role
of the IRTF is to help provide a productive forum that improves the
communication in both directions between the two communities.

4.3.1. What's in a Name: On the Name `Research Group'

There have been proposals that for some groups the name "Research
Group" is incorrect or unnecessarily off-putting to some potential
participants and that other names such as "Architecture Group" might
in some cases be more useful. Such a terminology change is
potentially quite significant, and needs to be evaluated in terms of
the IAB's overall role and responsibility for guiding the development
of architectural considerations within the IETF. Another issue is
that different RGs have different mixes of people, in terms of

Floyd, et al. Informational [Page 8]

RFC 4440 IAB Thoughts on IRTF Role March 2006

researchers from academia, industry practitioners, and IETF WG
participants; it is not clear how changing the names would affect
this.

4.4. The RFC Track for IRTF Documents

Currently, RFCs produced by RGs are published as individual
submissions, under the review of the RFC Editor [RFC3932]. There is
currently a discussion (and pending Internet-Draft) about the need
for a venue for publishing RG output that is clearly marked as
research, as opposed to the output of an IETF WG. This is both to
more clearly distinguish RG output from standards documents of the
IETF and to give RG output more visibility than that of individual
submissions. Similarly, RG output might have different reviewing
criteria from that of other documents considered as individual
submissions. This discussion is ongoing.

More visibility for RG Internet-Drafts could increase the level of
interchange between the RG and the rest of the community.

It would also be helpful to decrease the delay in the publication
time for IRTF RFCs. Anything that *increased* the publication time
would probably be counterproductive.

5. Security Considerations

There are no security considerations in this document.

6. Acknowledgements

This document comes out of discussions in the IAB. Many thanks to
Bob Braden, Rajeev Koodli, J.P. Martin-Flatin, and Gabriel Montenegro
for feedback on this document.

Floyd, et al. Informational [Page 9]

RFC 4440 IAB Thoughts on IRTF Role March 2006

7. Normative References

[RFC2014] Weinrib, A. and J. Postel, "IRTF Research Group
Guidelines and Procedures", BCP 8, RFC 2014, October
1996.

8. Informative References

[B03] Bell, G., "Failure to Thrive: QoS and the Culture of
Operational Networking", Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM
Workshop on Revisiting IP QoS: What Have We Learned,
Why Do We Care?, August 2003.

[E2ERG] Braden, B., "The End-to-end Research Group - Internet
Philosophers and Physicists", Presentation to the IETF
plenary, March 1998.

[IABMinutes] Minutes, IAB Teleconference -- June 12, 2001,
http://www.iab.org/documents/iabmins/
IABmins.2001-06-12.html.

[IABWebPages] A Brief History of the Internet Advisory / Activities /
Architecture Board,
http://www.garykessler.net/library/ietf_hx.html.

[NSRG] Web page, NameSpace Research Group (NSRG),
http://www.irtf.org/charter?gtype=old-rg&group=nsrg.

[RFC2309] Braden, B., et al., "Recommendations on Queue
Management and Congestion Avoidance in the Internet",
RFC 2309, April 1998.

[RFC3160] Harris, S., "The Tao of IETF - A Novice's Guide to the
Internet Engineering Task Force", FYI 17, RFC 3160,
August 2001.

[RFC3932] Alvestrand, H., "The IESG and RFC Editor Documents:
Procedures", BCP 92, RFC 3932, October 2004.

Floyd, et al. Informational [Page 10]

RFC 4440 IAB Thoughts on IRTF Role March 2006

Authors' Addresses

Internet Architecture Board
EMail: [email protected]

Internet Architecture Board Members at the time this document was
approved were:

Bernard Aboba
Loa Andersson
Brian Carpenter (IETF Chair)
Leslie Daigle (IAB Chair)
Patrik Faltstrom
Bob Hinden
Kurtis Lindqvist
David Meyer
Pekka Nikander
Eric Rescorla
Pete Resnick
Jonathan Rosenberg
Lixia Zhang

The IRTF Chair at the time this document was published was Aaron
Falk.

We note that when this document was begun, Sally Floyd was a member
of the IAB, and Vern Paxson, as IRTF chair at the time, was an
ex-officio member of the IAB.

Sally Floyd, Editor
International Computer Science Institute
1947 Center St., Suite 600
Berkeley, CA 94704

Phone: +1 510-666-2989
EMail: [email protected]
URL: http://www.icir.org/floyd/

Vern Paxson, Editor
International Computer Science Institute
1947 Center St., Suite 600
Berkeley, CA 94704

Phone: +1 510-666-2882
EMail: [email protected]

Floyd, et al. Informational [Page 11]

RFC 4440 IAB Thoughts on IRTF Role March 2006

Aaron Falk, Editor
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292

Phone: +1 310-822-1511
EMail: [email protected]

Floyd, et al. Informational [Page 12]

RFC 4440 IAB Thoughts on IRTF Role March 2006

Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
[email protected].

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Floyd, et al. Informational [Page 13]