RFC 4440

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

📅 published March 2006, from ietf

RFC 4440: IAB Thoughts on the Role of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) 🎀

Okay bestie, the title block tells us everything we need. This is RFC 4440 from the Network Working Group, and it's written by S. Floyd, Ed., V. Paxson, Ed., and A. Falk, Ed., with the IAB credited as the body behind it. It's Informational (so it's not a standard, just useful info 💅), and it's dated March 2006. The title block doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates, so there's nothing to cross-check there 🧚

Status of This Memo

This memo is information for the Internet community, not a spec 🌸 It doesn't define any Internet standard. And the distribution is unlimited, so share it with everyone 💖

Copyright Notice

Abstract

This is a report from the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) about the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) ✨ It covers the IRTF's role on its own and how it fits with the IETF. It started as a conversation inside the IAB while they were picking a new IRTF chair, which is giving process-meets-drama energy 😭

   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 ✨

So the IAB was figuring out who should chair the IRTF next, and that got them thinking about where the IRTF fits, both alone and next to the IETF 🤔 They turned that talk into this report and passed it around for the wider community to review. (Fun fact from this bit: Aaron Falk was appointed the new IRTF chair in March 2005 🦋)

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

Back before 1989, the IAB was called the Internet Activities Board and it oversaw a bunch of task forces. In 1989 they reorganized things so those task forces became two groups: the IETF and the IRTF 💅 The IRTF got long-term research problems, and the IETF got the short-to-medium-term engineering stuff. All 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] 🧚

Early on, a lot of people in both the IETF and the IRTF came from academia and research. (We don't have a citation for this, but if you look at IAB members from the 1980s and early 1990s, they're from places like MIT, UCLA, BBN, UCL, SDSC, and similar. IAB members from the last few years were more likely to list companies like Cisco, IBM, Microsoft, Nokia, Qualcomm, and Verisign [IABWebPages]. We'd expect a study of RFC authors to show the same trend over time, with fewer academic and research authors and more from the commercial world.) The IRTF still has a lot of academic and research energy, but the IETF has focused on standards development and has become dominated by the needs of the commercial sector 😭

The IRTF has mostly looked into areas that aren't mature enough for IETF standardization yet. It also looks at areas that aren't specifically about standardization but could guide future standards work 🌈

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 make up the main part of the IRSG, though the IRTF Chair can also appoint at-large members to the IRSG 💖

As RFC 2014 says, the IRTF doesn't set standards. Technologies developed in an RG can be brought to the IETF for possible standardization, but "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 make sure RGs don't become part of the standards process itself 🙅‍♀️

RFC 2014 also says 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, and it was chartered exclusively to make a recommendation to the IETF 🤓

RFC 2014 goes on to cover Research Group operation, meeting management, staff roles, group documents, and so on. This document isn't a revision of RFC 2014. It's a bigger-picture discussion of the possible roles of the IRTF ✨

Here's the past history of IRTF Chairs: Dave Clark (1989-1992); Jon Postel (1992-1995); Abel Weinrib (1995-1999); Erik Huizer (1999-2001); Vern Paxson (2001-2005). Iconic lineup 👑

2.1. Differences between IRTF and IETF Groups 🍓

Two big differences between IRTF research groups and IETF working groups: IRTF groups aren't trying to produce standards of any kind, and the output of IRTF groups doesn't need consensus within the RG, or broad consensus from the IETF 💅

In some cases, IRTF groups have worked as research groups with minimal constraints. They create a community for discussing research proposals, and when a proposal gets mature, it's "tossed over the fence" to an IETF group for standardization 🦋 The Reliable Multicast Research Group (RMRG) is an example of this, with its standardization efforts happening in the Reliable Multicast Transport working group (RMT) 🫶

2.2. Research Groups as Non-blocking Entities 🌸

As RFC 2014 states, the IRTF doesn't set standards. It's important that, unless the IESG clearly specifies otherwise, research groups don't act as gateways that control the advancement of standards, experimental RFCs, or informational RFCs produced by working groups in the IETF 🚦

Similarly, as RFC 2014 says, existing research groups don't necessarily stop new research groups from forming in related areas. Of course, when a new research group is proposed, it's totally appropriate for the IRTF and the IAB to consider how it relates to existing ones. Still, "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's a wide range of ways IRTF groups can be structured right now. Some of the biggest ones 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: RGs are generally long-term, but 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]. RFC 2014, written in 1996, assumed 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 (for example, the Anti-Spam Research Group), or they can be independent of any current or proposed work in the IETF (for example, the Delay-Tolerant Networking Research Group) 🔗
Range of activities: IRTF activities could include not just research groups and their meetings, workshops, and other activities, but also separate workshops or other one-time activities organized directly by the IRTF. So far, though, the IRTF hasn't organized such activities except in the form of BOFs at IETF meetings 🎪
Both research and development: IRTF groups can focus on traditional research, but they could also focus on development, tool-building, operational testing, protocol interoperability testing, or other activities that don't fit the framework of a working group (WG). Rather than having a specific plan for the evolution of the IRTF, the IAB thinks 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 the range of research groups could be expanded further in terms of timescale, relationship to the IETF, range of activities, and the range between research and development 🚀

4. Issues for the Future 🔮

This section talks about some of the issues in the future evolution of the IRTF 🌟 A key one, discussed in Section 4.1 below, is how the IRTF can best contribute on questions of network architecture.

Similar questions could come up about how the IRTF can best help incubate technology for later development in the IETF. We want to be clear that we're not proposing the IRTF become a de facto holding point for technologies that aren't making clear progress in the WGs. Some technologies might not make progress in WGs because of key open issues, which makes an RG an appropriate step 🧪

Other technologies, though, might not make progress in WGs because of a lack of interest, inherent design weaknesses, or some other reason that doesn't justify moving them into an RG instead 🥲

4.1. IRTF Groups and Network Architecture ✨

Okay so the IAB really cares about how progress gets made on network architecture 🏗️. That includes helping people develop and evaluate new architectures, and understanding the architecture (and the architectural issues) of the decentralized, deployed Internet infrastructure as it keeps evolving. It also covers building tools that could help with all of the above 🛠️.

IRTF groups can work anywhere from super visionary to super specific 🔭. The spectrum includes:

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 tackled broad architectural issues, with a mixed set of results 🤷‍♀️. Examples include the End-to-End Research Group, the NameSpace Research Group, and the Routing Research Group. Other RGs, like the Host Identity Protocol Research Group, focus on studying one specific proposal, and the wider architectural issues get raised at workshops the RG holds. Then there are RGs in specific areas with well-defined boundaries, where the topics don't have a broad impact on the wider Internet architecture.

Where an RG sits on that spectrum depends partly on where the IETF and the field itself are at 🧭. For example, in areas like network management, where the IETF community has doubts or concerns about where management technology should be going, it would be super useful for the IETF to look to the IRTF for architectural evaluation 🧐. In contrast, where the architectural approach is better established, an RG with an incubation approach might be a better fit 🌱. And where many pieces of the puzzle are in place but some significant problems remain, an RG with a problem focus might make sense 🧩.

For 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 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. For example, the IAB has asked the Routing Research Group for feedback about research objectives for inter-domain routing improvements [IABMinutes]. It's also possible for RGs to make recommendations on architectural or other issues, with or without an IAB request. The End-to-End Research Group [RFC2309] and the Crypto Forum Research Group have both made recommendations to the general IETF community 💌. Still, some RGs function better as a breeding ground for ideas than as a consensus-building community 🌱. The NameSpace Research Group was "an invitational research group chartered exclusively to make a recommendation to the IETF" [NSRG], but 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 IAB's goals 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 deserves more attention is making the relationship between the IETF and the IRTF more productive 📈. For many (though not all) research groups in the IRTF, a big part of the RG's power comes from its relationship to the IETF. Current and recent examples include 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 get better in both directions 🔁. Going from the IETF to the IRTF, that means sharing information about IETF problems that further research and development could help with, plus the IETF evaluating RG efforts and direction. Going from the IRTF to the IETF, it means reports, documents, proposals, BOFs, and the like. The 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 but not all of them, is for an RG to have a design-team-like relationship to the IETF or to an IETF working group 🧑‍🤝‍🧑. That would come with an RG charter that includes an agreement of deliverables, with some notion of the time frame for those deliverables. One issue that would need to be resolved is when it's appropriate for an RG to take on such a relationship versus an IETF WG doing the work directly, which 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 usually start from a proposal by individuals who want to form the RG. So it's important to realize that IRTF activity often won't be viable without individuals who want to take on the particular work. That tempers how useful it is for IETF WGs to give input to the IRTF about desired IRTF directions or activities 🫠. For example, the IETF can request specific research activities from IRTF RGs, but the results will require individuals within the RGs who are willing to undertake the work.

IRTF RGs have been a 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 ADs 😮‍💨, sometimes with little to show for it if the RG's direction is at odds with what the WG chairs or ADs want. One task for the future is to improve the dialogue between the IETF and the IRTF without 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 as the difficulties of making changes to the Internet architecture have increased, the research community's participation in the IETF has dropped 📉. We aren't necessarily expecting to reverse that 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'd 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'd like to see an IRTF with momentum that is self-sustaining from voluntary efforts. We'd like it to undertake (some) work on topics that align with the interests of the IETF, and in such a fashion continue to be of material assistance to the IETF standardization effort 🌟. We'd 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 of the IRTF is acting as 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 at 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 🙄. Meanwhile, researchers sometimes view the IETF as insufficiently thoughtful, or as an unproductive place to invest their research energies 😤. There's also a natural difference in timescales. The IETF is more focused on near- to medium-term issues, while researchers are 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, here's a quote 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." So one potential role of the IRTF is to help provide a productive forum that improves 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. It 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's not clear how changing the names would affect that mix 🤷‍♀️.

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 a 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 would more clearly distinguish RG output from the standards documents of the IETF, and give RG output more visibility than individual submissions get. Similarly, RG output might have different reviewing criteria from 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 ✨

okay so this is the reading list bit, and honestly it's giving research bibliography 📚🫶 every one of these is a source the document leans on, so here they all are, exactly as cited:

[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 💌

the contact bit, bestie 💅 the IAB is the group that put this together, and here's who was on it when it got approved, plus the IRTF chair and the editors with their details:

   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 ⭐

the legal sparkle ✨ the Internet Society owns the copyright here (2006), and this document is covered by the rights, licenses and restrictions in BCP 78. Apart from what BCP 78 says, the authors keep 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 IP part, lowkey important 🔥 the IETF doesn't take a side on whether any intellectual property rights covering the tech in here are valid or how far they reach, or whether anyone can actually get a license to use them. It also doesn't claim it went looking for those rights itself. If you want the rules on rights in RFC documents, check BCP 78 and BCP 79.

copies of IPR disclosures sent to the IETF Secretariat, the license assurances people promised, and any results from trying to get a general license or permission for implementers or users of this spec can all be found in the IETF's online IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 🗂️

the IETF also invites anyone who knows about copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other proprietary rights that might cover tech needed to implement this standard to tell them. send that info to ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 📬

Acknowledgement 🌸

big thank you to the funding squad 🫶 the RFC Editor function is funded by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

📦 where this page comes from

ietf: rfc4440 2006-03
💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on 2026-10-16: a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms