Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                      S. Floyd, Ed.Request for Comments: 4440                                V. Paxson, Ed.Category: Informational                                     A. Falk, Ed.                                                                     IAB                                                              March 2006IAB 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 Contents1. Introduction ....................................................22. The Relationship between the IRTF, the IAB, and the IETF ........22.1. Differences between IRTF and IETF Groups ...................32.2. Research Groups as Non-blocking Entities ...................33. The Range of IRTF Groups ........................................44. Issues for the Future ...........................................54.1. IRTF Groups and Network Architecture .......................54.2. The Relationship between the IETF and the IRTF .............6      4.3. Relationships between the Research and Development           Communities ................................................84.3.1. What's in a Name:  On the Name `Research Group' .....84.4. The RFC Track for IRTF Documents ...........................95. Security Considerations .........................................96. Acknowledgements ................................................97. Normative References ...........................................108. Informative References .........................................10Floyd, et al.                Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 4440               IAB Thoughts on IRTF Role              March 20061.  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 inRFC 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 ofFloyd, 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.   AsRFC 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] (Section1.1).  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 ofRFC 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 inRFC 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 inRFC 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] (Sections1.1 and2.1).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 thatRFC 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 inSection 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 ofFloyd, 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 20067.  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 2006Authors' 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.orgFloyd, 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: falk@isi.eduFloyd, et al.                Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 4440               IAB Thoughts on IRTF Role              March 2006Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions   contained inBCP 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 inBCP 78 andBCP 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 athttp://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).Floyd, et al.                Informational                     [Page 13]