In the larger and more diverse IETF, I must entirely disagree with any
suggestion that IETF working groups can operate in a research mode
of any sort.
I think you're simply wrong about that, for the reason that research
and engineering are not mutually exclusive and it's difficult to draw
a definite line between the two. In particular, almost no IETF
working group really understands the nature of the problem it is
trying to solve at the time it is chartered, and to gain the
appropriate level of understanding will often require some
research. I am also inclined to believe that protocol engineering
almost inherently involves _more_ research than many other forms of
engineering. Designing protocols is not like designing bridges or
automobiles in that most of the design constraints are understood
when the effort is undertaken. Every new protocol that is designed
requires a new learning experience. This is true even if there is a
legacy protocol in the same space - because often that legacy
protocol was not well-designed and does not adequately serve the
needs of the broader Internet community. Indeed, one of the "value
adds" that IETF provides is the vetting of a design across a broad
set of interests. Denying the ability of IETF WGs to conduct
"research" would remove much of that added value and impair IETF's
ability to do a good job.
The existence of IRTF doesn't change any of this. Nor would it be
beneficial to anyone - IETF, IRTF, or the community of users - to
require that every IETF WG be preceded by an IRTF RG so that the
"research" phase of the engineering effort could be done in the
"right place". IRTF seems like a good place to do research in areas
where we don't have a good grasp of the problem we want to solve and/
or we don't have a good idea what the eventual engineering solution
should look like. But this doesn't mean that all research should be
done in IRTF.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf