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.

   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

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

   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.

   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).

   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,

   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.

   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.

   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

   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.

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.

Authors' Addresses

   Internet Architecture Board
   EMail:  iab@iab.org

   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: floyd@acm.org
   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: vern@icir.org

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

   Phone: +1 310-822-1511
   EMail: falk@isi.edu

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
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

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