<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>

<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [	
]>


<rfc number="7418"
     category="info"
     submissionType="IRTF"
     consensus="no"
     ipr="trust200902">


<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>


<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc rfcedstyle="yes"?>

	<front>

	        <title abbrev='IRTF Primer for IETF'>
			An IRTF Primer for IETF Participants</title>

		<author initials="S." surname="Dawkins" fullname="Spencer Dawkins"
				role="editor">
			<organization abbrev="Huawei">Huawei Technologies</organization>
			<address>
	      			<email>spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com</email>
	 		</address>
	  	</author>

        	<date month="December" year="2014" />
		<workgroup>IRSG</workgroup>


<keyword>Research Group</keyword>



		 <abstract>
			 <t>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 (RGs)  
				 into the Internet Research
				 Task Force (IRTF). This document emphasizes differences
				 in expectations between the two organizations. 
			 </t>
		 </abstract>

	 </front>

	 <middle>

	 <section title="Introduction and Scope">

		 <t>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 (RGs)
			 into the Internet Research
			 Task Force (IRTF). This document emphasizes differences
			 in expectations between the two organizations. 
		 </t>


		 <t>IRTF RG guidelines and procedures are described in BCP 8
			 <xref target="RFC2014"/>, and this document 
			 does not change those guidelines and procedures in
			 any way.
		 </t>

	 </section>

	 <section title="The IRTF Is Not the IETF">

		 <t>A number of proposals from experienced IETF participants 
			 for new IRTF RGs have encountered
			 problems because the IETF participants were making proposals 
			 appropriate for 
			 the IETF, but not for the IRTF. <xref target="RFC2014"/> 
			 describes the origin of IRTF RGs but doesn't 
			 provide much detail about the process, which is intended
			 to be flexible and accommodate new types of RGs.
			 Lacking that detail, experienced IETF participants fall back
			 on what they know, assume that chartering an IRTF RG will be 
			 similar to chartering an IETF working group (WG), follow the
			 suggestions in <xref target="RFC6771"/> to gather a group
			 of interested parties, and then follow the suggestions in
			 <xref target="RFC5434"/> to prepare for a successful BOF
			 and eventually, a chartered WG.
		 </t>

		 <t>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 RG.
			 The mismatches fall into some consistent categories, and this 
			 document lists the ones that come up repeatedly.
		 </t>

		 <t>The target audience of this document is IETF participants bringing proposals to the IRTF.
		 </t>

		 <t>It's worth noting that the IRTF Chair has substantial autonomy on what 
			 RGs are chartered and how they reach that stage. The 
			 IRTF Chair at the time of writing is Lars Eggert.



		 </t>

		 <section title="Research and Engineering" anchor="rande">
			 <t><list style='empty'>
			   <t>"To me, the fundamental outcome of research is
			   understanding, and the fundamental outcome of engineering is a product."
				 - Fred Baker 
			 </t></list></t>

			 <t>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.
			 </t>

			 <t>Research can be open-ended, while engineering can come to a stopping 
				 point when the result
				 is "good enough" -- good enough to ship.
			 </t>


			 <t><list style='empty'><t>"If it has to work when you're finished, 
				 it wasn't research, it was engineering." - attributed to Dave Clark
			 </t></list></t>

		 </section>

		 <section title="Scope">
			 <t>IRTF RGs 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 WG charters, 
				 and RGs often discuss different topics underneath the
				 charter umbrella at different times,
				 based on current research interests in the field.
			 </t>

			 <t>IETF WGs
				 are chartered with a limited scope and specific deliverables.
				 If deliverables and milestones are known, 
				 the proposal is likely too limited for the IRTF.
			 </t>
		 </section>

		 <section title="Time Frames">
			 <t>IRTF RGs bring researchers
				 together to work on significant problems. 
				 That takes time. The effort required by a
				 RG is likely to take at least three to 
				 five years, significantly longer than IETF WGs 
				 envision when they are chartered.
			 </t>
		 </section>

		 <section title="Alternatives">
			 <t>IRTF RGs are encouraged to explore more than one
				 alternative approach to the chartered problem area. There is 
				 no expectation that the RG will "come to consensus"
				 on one approach. The RG may publish multiple 
				 competing proposals as research produces results.
			 </t>

			 <t>IETF WGs normally use the IETF
			 consensus process (as described in <xref
			 target="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 WG participants agree on,
				 or considering alternatives with a view to picking one
				 rather than spending significant effort on alternatives that
				 won't go forward.
			 </t>

			 <t>The IRTF, as an organization, may also charter multiple
				 RGs with somewhat overlapping areas of interest, which the
				 IETF tries very hard to avoid.
			 </t>
		 </section>

		 <section title="Process">
			 <t>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; in all other aspects,
				 IRTF RG operation is much less constrained than 
				 IETF WG operation. 
			 </t>

			 <t>Each IRTF RG 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 RGs to bypass fundamental IETF ways of 
				 working, such as the need to reach at least rough
				 consensus, which IRTF RGs need not do. Therefore, the mode of
				 operation of IRTF RGs can also change over time,
				 for example, perhaps becoming more like IETF WG operation
				 as the research the
				 group has been progressing matures.
			 </t>
		 </section>

		 <section title="Charters">

			 <t>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.
			 </t>

			 <t>IETF WG 
charters tend to be very narrow.  They are intended to constrain 
the work that the working group will be doing, and they may
contain considerable text about what the working group 
will not be working on.
			 </t>

		 </section>

		 <section title="Deliverables">
			 <t>There is no expectation that IRTF 
				 RGs publish 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 RGs are successful when they
				 stimulate discussion, produce relevant outputs, and impact the research
				 community.
			 </t>

			 <t>IETF WG 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 RGs.
			 </t>
		 </section>

		 <section title="Completion">
			 <t>IRTF RGs 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 the research underway has been completed, and the process can continue 
			 until the RG itself decides that it is
			 time to conclude or when the 
			 IRTF Chair determines that there is no more energy in the group to do 
			 research. 
			 </t>

			 <t>IETF WGs will typically conclude when they meet their 
				 chartered milestones, allowing 
				 participants to focus on implementation and deployment, although
				 the WG mailing list may remain open for a time.
			 </t>
		 </section>

	 </section>	

	 <section title="Now That You Know What Not to Do">

		 <t>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." 
		 </t>

		 <t>There are many ways to "act like an IRTF research group". <xref target="RFC4440"/> 
			 contains a number of points to consider when proposing a new RG.
			 Some possibilities include:
		 </t>

		 <t><list style="numbers">
			 <t>Identify and recruit a critical mass of researchers who can review and
				 build off each other's work.
			 </t>
			 <t>Identify other venues that may overlap the proposed RG, and
				 understand what value the proposed RG provides beyond 
				 what's already underway elsewhere.
			 </t>
			 <t>Hold a workshop to survey work that might set the stage for 
				 a RG on questions of interest, perhaps in concert with 
				 existing academic events.
			 </t>	
			 <t>If the proposed RG 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.
			 </t>

		 </list></t>

		 <t>But every proposed RG is different, so
		 e-mailing the IRTF Chair to start the conversation is a perfectly reasonable strategy.
		 </t>

	 </section>

	 <section title="Security Considerations">

		 <t>This document provides guidance about 
			 the IRTF chartering process to IETF participants
			 and has no direct Internet security implications.
		 </t>

	 </section>
     </middle>

     <back>

	 <references title='Normative References'>


<reference anchor='RFC2014' target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2014">
<front>
<title abbrev='IRTF Research Group Guidelines'>IRTF Research Group Guidelines and Procedures</title>
<author initials='A.' surname='Weinrib' fullname='Abel Weinrib'>
<organization>Intel Corporation, MS JF2-74</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>2111 NE 25th Ave.</street>
<street>Hillsboro</street>
<street>OR 97124</street></postal>
<phone>503-264-8972</phone>
<email>weinrib@intel.com</email></address></author>
<author initials='J.' surname='Postel' fullname='Jon Postel'>
<organization>USC - ISI, Suite 1001</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>4676 Admiralty Way</street>
<street>Marina del Rey</street>
<street>CA  90292-6695</street></postal>
<phone>310-822-1511</phone>
<email>postel@isi.edu</email></address></author>
<date year='1996' month='October' />
<area>General</area>
<keyword>Internet Architecture Board</keyword>
<keyword>Internet Research Task Force</keyword>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='BCP' value='8' />
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='2014' />
<format type='TXT' octets='27507' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2014.txt' />
<format type='XML' octets='29801' target='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/xml/rfc2014.xml' />
</reference>

	</references>

        <references title='Informative References'>

<reference anchor='RFC4440' target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4440">
<front>
<title>IAB Thoughts on the Role of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)</title>
<author initials='S.' surname='Floyd' fullname='S. Floyd'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='V.' surname='Paxson' fullname='V. Paxson'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='A.' surname='Falk' fullname='A. Falk'>
<organization /></author>
<author>
<organization>IAB</organization></author>
<date year='2006' month='March' />
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='4440' />
<format type='TXT' octets='29063' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4440.txt' />
</reference>

<reference anchor='RFC5434' target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5434">
<front>
<title>Considerations for Having a Successful Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) Session</title>
<author initials='T.' surname='Narten' fullname='T. Narten'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2009' month='February' />
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='5434' />
<format type='TXT' octets='33887' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5434.txt' />
</reference>

<reference anchor='RFC6771' target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6771">
<front>
<title>Considerations for Having a Successful "Bar BOF" Side Meeting</title>
<author initials='L.' surname='Eggert' fullname='L. Eggert'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='G.' surname='Camarillo' fullname='G. Camarillo'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2012' month='October' />
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='6771' />
<format type='TXT' octets='24724' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6771.txt' />
</reference>

<reference anchor='RFC7282' target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7282">
<front>
<title>On Consensus and Humming in the IETF</title>
<author initials='P.' surname='Resnick' fullname='P. Resnick'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2014' month='June' />
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='7282' />
<format type='TXT' octets='52339' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7282.txt' />
</reference>

	</references>
<section anchor="app-acknowledgments" title="Acknowledgements">
<t>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.</t>

<t>Thanks especially to Fred Baker for sharing thoughts about the
   motivations of research and engineering that resulted in a complete
   rewrite of <xref target="rande"/>.</t>

<t>Thanks also to Scott Brim, Kevin Fall, Eliot Lear, David Meyer, 
   and Stephen Farrell for providing helpful review comments, and 
   to Denis Ovsienko for careful proofreading.</t>
</section>
    </back>

</rfc>
