Internet DRAFT - draft-dawkins-irtf-newrg
draft-dawkins-irtf-newrg
IRSG S. Dawkins, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Informational September 23, 2014
Expires: March 27, 2015
An IRTF Primer for IETF Participants
draft-dawkins-irtf-newrg-05.txt
Abstract
This document provides a high-level description of things for
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) participants to consider when
bringing proposals for new research groups into the Internet Research
Task Force (IRTF). This document emphasizes differences in
expectations between the two organizations.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 27, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Dawkins Expires March 27, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IRTF Primer for IETF September 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. The IRTF is not the IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Research and Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Timeframes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.4. Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.5. Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.6. Charters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.7. Deliverables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.8. Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Now That You Know What Not To DO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction and Scope
This document provides a high-level description of things for
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) participants to consider when
bringing proposals for new research groups into the Internet Research
Task Force (IRTF). This document emphasizes differences in
expectations between the two organizations.
IRTF research group guidelines and procedures are described in
[RFC2014] (BCP 8), and this document does not change those guidelines
and procedures in any way.
2. The IRTF is not the IETF
A number of proposals from experienced IETF participants for new IRTF
research groups have encountered problems because the IETF
participants were making proposals appropriate for the IETF, but not
for the IRTF. [RFC2014] describes the origin of IRTF research
groups, but doesn't provide much detail about the process, which is
intended to be flexible and accommodate new types of research groups.
Lacking that detail, experienced IETF participants fall back on what
they know, assume that chartering an IRTF research group will be
similar to chartering an IETF working group, and follow the
suggestions in [RFC6771] to gather a group of interested parties, and
then follow the suggestions in [RFC5434] to prepare for a successful
BOF and eventually, a chartered working group.
Dawkins Expires March 27, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IRTF Primer for IETF September 2014
Both of these documents are excellent references for proposals in the
IETF, but their suggestions may result in a proposal that is almost
the opposite of what the IRTF Chair is looking for in a proposal for
an IRTF research group. The mismatches fall into some consistent
categories, and this document lists the ones that come up repeatedly.
The target audience of this document is IETF participants bringing
proposals to the IRTF.
It's worth noting that the IRTF Chair has substantial autonomy on
what research groups are chartered and how they reach that stage.
This document reflects Lars Eggert as IRTF Chair.
2.1. Research and Engineering
"To me, the fundamental outcome of research is understanding, and
the fundamental outcome of engineering is a product" - Fred Baker.
In some ways, research is about a journey, and engineering is about a
destination. If a researcher answers a question in a way that opens
another question, that can be success. If an engineer keeps working
on a product without finishing it, that is usually a failure.
Research can be open-ended, while engineering can come to a stopping
point when the result is "good enough" - good enough to ship.
"If it has to work when you're finished, it wasn't research, it
was engineering" - attributed to Dave Clark.
2.2. Scope
IRTF research groups have a scope large enough to interest
researchers, attract them to the IRTF, and keep them busy doing
significant work. Their charters are therefore usually much broader
than IETF working group charters, and research groups often discuss
different topics underneath the charter umbrella at different times,
based on current research interests in the field.
IETF working groups are chartered with a limited scope and specific
deliverables. If deliverables and milestones are known, the proposal
is likely too limited for the IRTF.
2.3. Timeframes
IRTF research groups bring researchers together to work on
significant problems. That takes time. The effort required by a
research group is likely to take at least three to five years,
Dawkins Expires March 27, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IRTF Primer for IETF September 2014
significantly longer than IETF working groups envision when they are
chartered.
2.4. Alternatives
IRTF research groups are encouraged to explore more than one
alternative approach to the chartered problem area. There is no
expectation that the research group will "come to consensus" on one
approach. The research group may publish multiple competing
proposals as research produces results.
IETF working groups normally use the IETF consensus process (as
described in [RFC7282] to drive interoperable solutions into the
market place. That often includes reducing the number of approaches
to something manageable for an implementer, preferably one, whether
that means starting with an approach the working group participants
agree on, or considering alternatives with a view to picking one
rather than spending significant effort on alternatives that won't go
forward.
The IRTF as an organization may also charter multiple research groups
with somewhat overlapping areas of interest, which the IETF tries
very hard to avoid.
2.5. Process
All IRTF participants have the obligation to disclose IPR and
otherwise follow the IRTF's IPR policies, which closely mirror the
IETF's IPR policies, but in all other aspects, IRTF research group
operation is much less constrained than IETF working group operation.
Each IRTF research group is permitted (and encouraged) to agree on a
way of working together that best supports the specific needs of the
group. This freedom allows IRTF research groups to bypass
fundamental IETF ways of working, such as the need to reach at least
rough consensus, which IRTF research groups need not do. The mode of
operation of IRTF research groups can therefore also change over
time, for example, perhaps becoming more like IETF working group
operation as the research the group has been progressing matures.
2.6. Charters
The purpose of charters in the IRTF is to broadly sketch the field of
research that a group is interested in pursuing, and to serve as an
advertisement to other researchers who may be wondering if the group
is the right place to participate.
Dawkins Expires March 27, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IRTF Primer for IETF September 2014
IETF working group charters tend to be very narrow, intended to
constrain the work that the working group will be doing, and may
contain considerable text about what the working group will not be
working on.
2.7. Deliverables
There is no expectation that IRTF groups must publish any RFCs,
although many do. Some IRTF research groups produce IRTF-stream
RFCs, while others produce Internet-Drafts that form the basis of
IETF-stream RFCs, and still others may deliver reports, white papers,
academic journal articles, or even carry out relevant high-level
discussions that aren't ever published, but influence other research.
IRTF groups are successful when they stimulate discussion, produce
relevant outputs and impact the research community.
IETF working group deliverables tend to be specific protocol,
deployment and operational specifications, along with problem
statements, use cases, requirements and architectures that inform
those specifications. Almost all IETF working groups are chartered
to deliver Internet standards, which isn't an option for IRTF
research groups.
2.8. Completion
IRTF research groups may produce the outputs they expected to produce
when they were chartered, but it also happens that researchers
consider what they've learned and start work on better solutions.
This can happen whether or not research underway has been completed,
and the process can continue until the research group itself decides
that it is time to conclude, or IRTF chair determines that there is
no more energy in the group to do research.
IETF working groups will typically conclude when they meet their
chartered milestones, allowing participants to focus on
implementation and deployment, although the working group mailing
list may remain open for a time.
3. Now That You Know What Not To DO
The current IRTF Chair, Lars Eggert, is fond of saying, "just act
like an IRTF research group for a year, and we'll see if you are
one".
There are many ways to "act like an IRTF research group". [RFC4440]
contains a number of points to consider when proposing a new research
group. Some possibilities include:
Dawkins Expires March 27, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IRTF Primer for IETF September 2014
1. Identify and recruit a critical mass of researchers who can
review and build off each other's work.
2. Identify other venues that may overlap the proposed research
group, and understand what value the proposed research group
provides beyond what's already underway elsewhere.
3. Hold a workshop to survey work that might set the stage for a
research group on questions of interest, perhaps in concert with
existing academic events.
4. If the proposed research group expects to have outputs that will
ultimately be standardized in the IETF, identify and recruit
engineers who can review and provide feedback on intermediate
results.
But every proposed research group is different, so e-mailing the IRTF
Chair to start the conversation is a perfectly reasonable strategy.
4. Security Considerations
This document provides guidance about the IRTF chartering process to
IETF participants and has no direct Internet security implications.
5. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requests of IANA and the RFC Editor can safely
remove this section during publication.
6. Acknowledgements
Thanks go to Lars Eggert, who became IRTF Chair in 2011 and has been
carrying this information around in his head ever since. Lars also
provided helpful comments on early versions of this document.
Thanks especially to Fred Baker for sharing thoughts about the
motivations of research and engineering that resulted in a complete
rewrite of Section 2.1.
Thanks also to Scott Brim, David Meyer, and Stephen Farrell for
helpful review comments, and to Denis Ovsienko for careful
proofreading.
7. References
Dawkins Expires March 27, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IRTF Primer for IETF September 2014
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2014] Weinrib, A. and J. Postel, "IRTF Research Group Guidelines
and Procedures", BCP 8, RFC 2014, October 1996.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC4440] Floyd, S., Paxson, V., Falk, A., and IAB, "IAB Thoughts on
the Role of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)", RFC
4440, March 2006.
[RFC5434] Narten, T., "Considerations for Having a Successful Birds-
of-a-Feather (BOF) Session", RFC 5434, February 2009.
[RFC6771] Eggert, L. and G. Camarillo, "Considerations for Having a
Successful "Bar BOF" Side Meeting", RFC 6771, October
2012.
[RFC7282] Resnick, P., "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF", RFC
7282, June 2014.
Author's Address
Spencer Dawkins (editor)
Huawei Technologies
Email: spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com
Dawkins Expires March 27, 2015 [Page 7]
