RFC 7418

An IRTF Primer for IETF Participants

📅 published December 2014, from ietf

Heyyy bestie, let's get into RFC 7418! 🎀✨

Quick vibe check on the title block first 💅 This one's an Informational doc from the IRTF (Internet Research Task Force), written by S. Dawkins, Ed. from Huawei 🌸, dated December 2014, with ISSN 2070-1721. It doesn't obsolete or update anything, and it's not a Standards Track spec at all, just a "here's the tea" guide 🫶

Here's part 1 of the rewrite, covering the title block, the front matter, and the table of contents.

Front Matter 🦋

Title and Author Details 💖

The title is An IRTF Primer for IETF Participants 🧚

Author: S. Dawkins, Ed. (Huawei) 🌸 Category: Informational Date: December 2014 ISSN: 2070-1721

Abstract ✨

okay so this doc is basically a high-level guide for IETF people who wanna bring new research group (RG) proposals to the IRTF. It's all about how the expectations are different between the two orgs, and why that matters 🔥

Status of This Memo 💅

Okay, the big deal here: this is not an Internet Standards Track spec. It's published just for info 🫶

This doc is a product of the IRTF, which publishes research and development results related to the Internet. Those results might not be ready for deployment, periodt 💀. This RFC is the individual opinion of one or more members of the IRSG Research Group of the IRTF. Stuff the IRSG approves for publication is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard, see Section 2 of RFC 5741 🙈

For the latest status, errata, and feedback info, check http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7418 🌈

Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. 💜

This doc is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) as they stand on the publication date. Read those carefully, bestie, they spell out your rights and restrictions 📜

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.  Time Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   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.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
  5.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
  5.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1. Introduction and Scope 🌸

This doc gives a high-level rundown of stuff IETF participants should think about before bringing proposals for new research groups (RGs) into the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) 🦋. It really leans into how the two orgs have different expectations, literally the whole point 💅

IRTF RG guidelines and procedures are in BCP 8 [RFC2014], and this doc does not change those guidelines and procedures in any way ✨

2. The IRTF Is Not the IETF 💖

Okay, so a bunch of experienced IETF folks have proposed new IRTF RGs and gotten tripped up, because they were writing proposals that worked for the IETF but not for the IRTF 😭 [RFC2014] explains where IRTF RGs came from but doesn't give much detail on the process, which is meant to stay flexible and fit new kinds of RGs 🧚. Without that detail, people fall back on what they know 🙈 They assume chartering an IRTF RG works like chartering an IETF working group (WG), follow [RFC6771] to gather interested parties, then follow [RFC5434] to get ready for a successful BOF and eventually a chartered WG 🔥

Both of those docs are excellent for IETF proposals, but following their advice can give you something almost the opposite of what the IRTF Chair wants 💀 The mismatches fall into some consistent buckets, and this doc lists the ones that keep coming up 💜

This doc is for IETF participants bringing proposals to the IRTF 🎀

Also, the IRTF Chair has a LOT of autonomy over which RGs get chartered and how they get there 👑 The IRTF Chair at the time of writing is Lars Eggert 🌈

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

Research is kinda a journey, and engineering is a destination 🧚 If a researcher answers a question and that opens up another question, that's a win ✨ If an engineer keeps polishing a product and never finishes it, that's usually a fail 💀

Research can go on forever, while engineering stops 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 RGs need a scope big enough to hook researchers, pull them into the IRTF, and keep them busy with real work 🔥 So their charters are usually way broader than IETF WG charters, and RGs often bounce around different topics under that umbrella over time, depending on what researchers are currently into 🌈

IETF WGs get a limited scope with specific deliverables 🎀 If the deliverables and milestones are already known, the proposal is probably too narrow for the IRTF 🙈

2.3. Time Frames ⭐

IRTF RGs bring researchers together to tackle big problems, and that takes time ⏳ An RG will likely need at least three to five years, which is way longer than IETF WGs usually plan for when they get chartered 😭

2.4. Alternatives 🦋

IRTF RGs are encouraged to explore more than one approach to the chartered problem area 💖 There's no expectation that the RG will "come to consensus" on one approach 🫶 The RG may publish multiple competing proposals as research produces results ✨

IETF WGs normally use the IETF consensus process (as described in [RFC7282]) to push interoperable solutions into the market 🔥 That usually means trimming the number of approaches down to something manageable for an implementer, ideally just one 💅 That could mean starting with an approach the WG agrees on, or considering alternatives with the goal of picking one, instead of spending real effort on options that won't go forward 🧚

The IRTF, as an organization, may also charter multiple RGs with somewhat overlapping interests, which the IETF tries super hard to avoid 🙈

2.5. Process 🌸

All IRTF participants have to disclose IPR and otherwise follow the IRTF's IPR policies, which closely mirror the IETF's IPR policies 📜 In every other way, IRTF RG operation is way less constrained than IETF WG operation 🌈

Each IRTF RG is allowed (and encouraged) to agree on a way of working together that best fits its needs 💜 That freedom means IRTF RGs can skip fundamental IETF ways of working, like needing to reach at least rough consensus, which they don't have to do 🦋 So the way an IRTF RG operates can change over time, for example becoming more like IETF WG operation as the research matures 🧚

2.6. Charters 🎀

The point of IRTF charters is to broadly sketch the research field a group is interested in, and to act like an ad for other researchers who might be wondering if this is the right place to participate 💖

IETF WG charters tend to be very narrow 🙈 They're meant to limit what the WG works on, and they may include a lot of text about what the WG will NOT be working on 💅

2.7. Deliverables ✨

There's no expectation that IRTF RGs publish RFCs, although many do 📜 Some IRTF RGs produce IRTF-stream RFCs, others produce Internet-Drafts that become the basis of IETF-stream RFCs, and others might deliver reports, white papers, academic journal articles, or even high-level discussions that never get published but still shape other research 🌈 IRTF RGs are successful when they spark discussion, produce relevant outputs, and make an impact on the research community 🔥

IETF WG deliverables tend to be specific protocol, deployment, and operational specs, along with problem statements, use cases, requirements, and architectures that inform those specs 🧚 Almost all IETF WGs are chartered to deliver Internet standards, which is not an option for IRTF RGs 💀

2.8. Completion 🌙

IRTF RGs may produce the outputs they expected when they were chartered, but it also happens that researchers look at what they've learned and start working on better solutions 🦋 This can happen whether or not the current research is finished, and the process can keep going until the RG itself decides it's time to wrap up, or until the IRTF Chair decides there's no more energy in the group for research 😭

IETF WGs typically conclude once they meet their chartered milestones, so participants can focus on implementation and deployment, although the WG mailing list may stay open for a while 💅

3. Now That You Know What Not to Do 💖

The current IRTF Chair, Lars Eggert, loves saying, "Just act like an IRTF research group for a year, and we'll see if you are one." 👑

There are lots of ways to "act like an IRTF research group" 🎀 [RFC4440] has a bunch of points to consider when proposing a new RG 📜 Some possibilities include:

  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 RG, and understand what value the proposed RG provides beyond what's already happening elsewhere. 🌸
  3. Hold a workshop to survey work that might set the stage for a RG on questions of interest, perhaps alongside existing academic events. ✨
  4. If the proposed RG expects outputs that will ultimately be standardized in the IETF, identify and recruit engineers who can review and give feedback on intermediate results. 🔥

But every proposed RG is different, so emailing the IRTF Chair to start the conversation is a perfectly reasonable strategy 💅

4. Security Considerations 🛡️

This doc gives guidance about the IRTF chartering process to IETF participants and has no direct Internet security implications 🫶

5. References 📚

5.1. Normative References 🌈

[RFC2014]  Weinrib, A. and J. Postel, "IRTF Research Group Guidelines
           and Procedures", BCP 8, RFC 2014, October 1996,
           <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2014>.

That's part 1, bestie! 🌈💖 Part 2 is coming with the rest of the references, Acknowledgements, and Author's Address 🧚✨

5.2. Informative References ✨

Okay bestie, these are the "extra reading" refs, the ones that aren't required to understand the spec but are lowkey essential for the whole vibe. 📚💖

Acknowledgements 💜

Okay, big thank-you energy incoming! 🫶 Lars Eggert became IRTF Chair in 2011 and has been carrying this information around in his head ever since, which is honestly iconic. He also gave super helpful comments on early versions of this document. 👑

Huge shoutout to Fred Baker, who shared his thoughts about the motivations behind research and engineering. Those thoughts led to a complete rewrite of Section 2.1, and I am obsessed with how much better it reads now. ✨

Thanks also to Scott Brim, Kevin Fall, Eliot Lear, David Meyer, and Stephen Farrell for providing helpful review comments. And a special thank-you to Denis Ovsienko for careful proofreading, because proofreading is so not glamorous but it's literally what keeps everything correct. 💅🌈

Author's Address 🧚

Spencer Dawkins (editor) Huawei Technologies

EMail: spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com

📦 where this page comes from