[Search] [txt|ps|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 rfc3869                                           
Internet Engineering Task Force                    Ran Atkinson, Editor
INTERNET DRAFT                                      Sally Floyd, Editor
draft-iab-research-funding-01.txt           Internet Architecture Board
                                                           29 June 2003




 IAB Concerns & Recommendations Regarding Internet Research & Evolution


                          Status of this Memo


   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

Abstract

   This document discusses IAB concerns that ongoing research is needed
   to further the evolution of the Internet infrastructure, and that
   consistent, sufficient non-commercial funding is needed to enable
   such research.

   Feedback can be sent to the IAB mailing list at iab@ietf.org, or to
   the editors at rja@extremenetworks.com and floyd@icir.org.   Feedback
   can also be sent to the mailing list set up for feedback at research-
   funding@ietf.org.  Requests to join can be sent to research-funding-
   request@ietf.org, with "subscribe research-funding" in the body of
   the request.





IAB                           Informational                     [Page 1]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


Table of Contents


















































IAB                           Informational                     [Page 2]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


     1.  Introduction
     1.1.  Document Organization
     1.2.  IAB Concerns
     1.3.  Contributions to this Document
     2.  History of Internet Research & Research Funding
     2.1.  Prior to 1980
     2.2.  1980s and early 1990s
     2.3.  Mid-1990s to 2003
     2.4.  Current Status
     3.  Open Internet Research Topics
     3.1.  Scope & Limitations
     3.2.  Naming
     3.2.1.  Domain Name System (DNS)
     3.2.2.  New Namespaces
     3.3.  Routing
     3.3.1.  Inter-domain Routing
     3.3.2.  Routing Integrity
     3.3.3.  Routing Algorithms
     3.3.4.  Mobile & Ad-Hoc Routing
     3.4.  Security
     3.4.1.  Freely Distributable Prototypes
     3.4.2.  Formal Methods
     3.4.3.  Key Management
     3.4.4  Cryptography
     3.4.5  Security for Distributed Computing
     3.4.6.  Deployment Considerations in Security
     3.4.7.  Denial of Service Protection
     3.5.  Network Management
     3.5.1.  Configuration Management
     3.5.1.  Enhanced Monitoring Capabilities
     3.5.2.  Managing Networks, Not Devices
     3.5.3.  Improving the Scalability of Network Management
     3.6.  Quality of Service
     3.6.1.  Inter-Domain QoS Architecture
     3.6.2.  New Queuing Disciplines
     3.7.  Congestion control.
     3.8.  Studying the Evolution of the Internet Infrastructure
     3.9.  Middleboxes
     3.10.  Internet Measurement
     3.11.  Meeting the Needs of the Future
     3.12.  Additional topics
     4.  Conclusions
     5.  Acknowledgements
     6.  Security Considerations
     7.  IANA Considerations
     9. AUTHORS' ADDRESSES





IAB                           Informational                     [Page 3]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


1.  Introduction

   This document discusses the history of funding for Internet research,
   expresses concern about the current state of such funding, and
   outlines several specific areas that the IAB believes merit
   additional research.  Current funding levels for Internet research
   are not generally adequate, and several important research areas are
   significantly underfunded.  This situation needs to be rectified for
   the Internet to continue its evolution and development.

1.1.  Document Organization

   The first part of the document is a high-level discussion of the
   history of funding for Internet research to provide some historical
   context to this document.  The early funding of Internet research was
   largely from the U.S. government, followed by a period in the second
   half of the 1990s of commercial funding and of funding from several
   governments.  [Add a citation.]  However, the commercial funding for
   Internet research has been reduced due to the recent economic
   downturn.

   The second part of the document provides an incomplete set of open
   Internet research topics.  These are only examples, intended to
   illustrate the breadth of open research topics.  This second section
   supports the general thesis that ongoing research is needed to
   further the evolution of the Internet infrastructure.  This includes
   research on the medium-time-scale evolution of the Internet
   infrastructure as well as research on longer-time-scale grand
   challenges.  This also includes many research issues that are already
   being actively investigated in the Internet research community.

   Areas that are discussed in this section include the following:
   naming, routing, security, network management, and transport.  Issues
   that require more research also include more general architectural
   issues such as layering and communication between layers.  In
   addition, general topics discussed in this section include modeling,
   measurement, simulation, test-beds, etc.  We are focusing on topics
   that are related to the IETF and IRTF (Internet Research Task Force)
   agendas.  (E.g., issues related to the global grid are not discussed
   in this document because these issues are addressed through the
   Global Grid Forum and other grid-specific organizations, not in the
   IETF.)

   Where at all possible, the examples in the paper point to separate
   documents on these issues, and only give a high-level summary of the
   issues raised in those documents.





IAB                           Informational                     [Page 4]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


1.2.  IAB Concerns

   Recently, in the aftermath of September 11 2001, there seems to be a
   renewed interest by governments in funding research for Internet-
   related security issues.  From [J02]: "It is generally agreed that
   the security and reliability of the basic protocols underlying the
   Internet have not received enough attention because no one has a
   proprietary interest in them".

   That quote brings out a key issue in funding for Internet research,
   which is that because no single organization (e.g., no single
   government, software company, equipment vendor, or network operator)
   has a sense of ownership of the global Internet infrastructure,
   research on the general issues of the Internet infrastructure are
   often not adequately funded.  In our current challenging economic
   climate, it is not surprising that commercial funding sources are
   more likely to fund that research that leads to a direct competitive
   advantage.

   The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding
   is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the
   future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble.  In
   addition to issues about which projects were funded, the funding
   source can also affect the content of the research, for example,
   towards or against the development of open standards, or taking
   varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols
   on the other traffic on the Internet.

   At the same time, many significant research contributions in
   networking have come from commercial funding.  However, for most of
   the topics in this document, relying solely on commercially-funded
   research would not be adequate.  Much of today's commercial funding
   is focused on technology transition, taking results from non-
   commercial research and putting them into shipping commercial
   products.  We have not tried to delve into each of the research
   issues below to discuss, for each issue, what are the potentials and
   limitations of commercial funding for research in that area.

   On a more practical note, if there was no commercial funding for
   Internet research, then few research projects would be taken to
   completion with implementations, deployment, and follow-up
   evaluation.

   While it is theoretically possible for there to be too much funding
   for Internet research, that is far from the current problem.  There
   is also much that could be done within the network research community
   to make Internet research more focused and productive, but that would
   belong in a separate document.



IAB                           Informational                     [Page 5]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


1.3.  Contributions to this Document

   A number of people have directly contributed text for this document,
   even though, following current conventions, the official RFC author
   list includes only the key editors of the document.  The
   Acknowledgements section at the end of the document thanks other
   people who contributed to this document in some form.

2.  History of Internet Research & Research Funding

2.1.  Prior to 1980

   Most of the early research into packet-switched networks was
   sponsored by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
   (DARPA) [CSTB99].  This includes the initial design, implementation,
   and deployment of the ARPAnet connecting several universities and
   other DARPA contractors.  The ARPAnet originally came online in the
   late 1960s.  It grew in size during the 1970s, still chiefly with
   DARPA funding, and demonstrated the utility of packet-switched
   networking.

2.2.  1980s and early 1990s

   The ARPAnet converted to the Internet Protocol on January 1, 1983,
   approximately 20 years before this document was written.  Throughout
   the 1980s, the U.S. Government continued strong research and
   development funding for Internet technology.  DARPA continued to be
   the key funding source, but was supplemented by other DoD (US
   Department of Defense) funding (e.g. via DCA's Defense Data Network
   (DDN) program) and other U.S. Government funding (e.g. US Department
   of Energy (DoE) funding for research networks at DoE national
   laboratories, (US) National Science Foundation (NSF) funding for
   academic institutions).  This funding included basic research,
   applied research (including freely distributable prototypes), the
   purchase of IP-capable products, and operating support for the IP-
   based government networks such as ARPAnet, ESnet, MILnet, and NSFnet.

   In the late 1980s, the U.S. DoD desired to leave the business of
   providing operational network services to academic institutions, so
   funding for many academic activities moved over to the NSF.  NSF
   funding included research projects into networking, as well as
   creating the NSFnet backbone and sponsoring the creation of several
   NSF regional networks (e.g. SURAnet) and interconnections with
   several international research networks.

   Most research funding outside the U.S. during the 1980s and early
   1990s was focused on the ISO OSI networking project or on then-new
   forms of network media (e.g. wireless, broadband access).  The



IAB                           Informational                     [Page 6]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


   European Union was a significant source of research funding for the
   networking community in Europe during this period.  Some of the best
   early work in gigabit networking was undertaken in the UK and Sweden.

2.3.  Mid-1990s to 2003

   Starting in the middle 1990s, U.S. Government funding for Internet
   research and development was significantly reduced.  The premise for
   this was that the growing Internet industry would pay for whatever
   research and development that was needed.  Some funding for Internet
   research and development has continued in this period from European
   and Asian organizations (e.g., the WIDE Project in Japan [WIDE]).
   Reseaux IP Europeens [RIPE] is an example of market-funded networking
   research in Europe during this period.

   Experience during this period has been that commercial firms have
   often focused on donating equipment to academic institutions and
   promoting somewhat vocationally-focused educational projects.  Many
   of the commercially-funded research and development projects appear
   to have been selected because they appeared likely to give the
   funding source a specific short-term economic advantage over its
   competitors.  Higher risk, more innovative research proposals
   generally have not been funded by industry.  A common view in Silicon
   Valley has been that established commercial firms are not very good
   at transitioning cutting edge research into products, but were
   instead good at buying small startup firms who had successfully
   transitioned such cutting edge research into products.
   Unfortunately, small startup companies are generally unable
   financially to fund any research themselves.

2.4.  Current Status

   The result of reduced U.S. Government funding and profit-focused,
   low-risk, short-term industry funding has been a decline in higher-
   risk but more innovative research activities.  Industry has also been
   less interested in research to evolve the overall Internet
   architecture, because such work does not translate into a competitive
   advantage for the firm funding such work.

   The IAB believes that it would be helpful for governments and other
   non-commercial sponsors to increase their funding of both basic
   research and applied research relating to the Internet.  Furthermore,
   those increased funding levels should be sustained and protected
   against inflation going forward.







IAB                           Informational                     [Page 7]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


3.  Open Internet Research Topics

   This section primarily discusses some specific topics that the IAB
   believes merit additional research.  Research, of course, includes
   not just devising a theory, algorithm, or mechanism to accomplish a
   goal, but also evaluating the general efficacy of the approach and
   then the benefits vs. the costs of deploying that algorithm or
   mechanism.  Important cautionary notes about this discussion are
   given in the next sub-section.  This particular set of topics is not
   intended to be comprehensive, but instead is intended to demonstrate
   the breadth of open Internet research questions.

3.1.  Scope & Limitations

   This document is NOT intended as a guide for funding organizations as
   to exactly which projects or proposals should or should not be
   funded.

   In particular, this document is NOT intended to be a comprehensive
   list of *all* of the research questions that are important to further
   the evolution of the Internet; that would be a daunting task, and
   would presuppose a wider and more intensive effort than we have
   undertaken in this document.

   Similarly, this document is not intended to list the research
   questions that are judged to be only of peripheral importance, or to
   survey the current (global; governmental, commercial, and academic)
   avenues for funding for Internet research, or to make specific
   recommendations about which areas need additional funding.  The
   purpose of the document is to persuade the reader that ongoing
   research is needed towards the continued evolution of the Internet
   infrastructure; the purpose is not to make binding pronouncements
   about which specific areas are and are not worthy of future funding.

   For some research clearly relevant to the future evolution of the
   Internet, there are grand controversies between competing proposals
   or competing schools of thought; it is not the purpose of this
   document to take positions in these controversies, or to take
   positions on the nature of the solutions for areas needing further
   research.

   That all carefully noted, the remainder of this section discusses a
   broad set of research areas, noting a subset of particular topics of
   interest in each of those research areas.  Again, this list is NOT
   comprehensive, but rather is intended to suggest that a broad range
   of ongoing research is needed, and to propose some candidate topics.





IAB                           Informational                     [Page 8]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


3.2.  Naming

   The Internet currently has several different namespaces, including IP
   addresses, sockets (specified by the IP address, upper-layer
   protocol, and upper-layer port number), and the Fully-Qualified
   Domain Name (FQDN).  Many of the Internet's namespaces are supported
   by the widely deployed Domain Name System [RFC refs] or by various
   Internet applications [RFC-2407, Section 4.6.2.1]

3.2.1.  Domain Name System (DNS)

   The DNS system, while it works well given its current constraints,
   has several stress points.

   The current DNS system relies on UDP for transport, rather than SCTP
   or TCP.  Given the very large number of clients using a typical DNS
   server, it is desirable to minimise the state on the DNS server side
   of the connection.  UDP does this well, so is a reasonable choice,
   though this has other implications, for example a reliance on UDP
   fragmentation.  With IPv6, intermediate fragmentation is not allowed
   and Path MTU Discovery is mandated.  However, the amount of state
   required to deploy Path MTU Discovery for IPv6 on a DNS server might
   be a significant practical problem.

   One implication of this is that research into alternative transport
   protocols, designed more for DNS-like applications where there are
   very many clients using each server, might be useful.  Of particular
   interest would be transport protocols with little burden for the DNS
   server, even if that increased the burden somewhat for the DNS
   client.

   Additional study of DNS caching, both currently available caching
   techniques and also of potential new caching techniques, might be
   helpful in finding ways to reduce the offered load for a typical DNS
   server.  In particular, examination of DNS caching through typical
   commercial firewalls might be interesting if it lead to alternative
   firewall implementations that were less of an obstacle to DNS
   caching.

   The community lacks a widely agreed upon set of metrics for measuring
   DNS server performance.  It would be helpful if people would
   seriously consider what characteristics of the DNS system should be
   measured.

   Some in the community would advocate replacing the current DNS system
   with something better.  Past attempts to devise a better approach
   have not yielded results that persuaded the community to change.
   Proposed work in this are could be very useful, but might require



IAB                           Informational                     [Page 9]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


   careful scrutiny to avoid falling into historic design pitfalls.

   With regards to DNS security, major technical concerns include
   finding practical methods for signing very large DNS zones (e.g.
   .COM), practical methods for incremental deployment of DNS security,
   and tools to make it easier to manage secure DNS infrastructure.

3.2.2.  New Namespaces

   Additionally, the Namespace Research Group (NSRG) of the Internet
   Research Task Force (IRTF) studied adding one or more additional
   namespaces to the Internet Architecture [LD2002]. Many participants
   in the IRTF NSRG membership believe that there would be significant
   architectural benefit to adding one or more additional namespaces to
   the Internet Architecture.  Because smooth consensus on that question
   or on the properties of a new namespace was not obtained, the IRTF
   NSRG did not make a formal recommendation to the IETF community
   regarding namespaces.  The IAB believes that this is an open research
   question worth examining further.

   Finally, we believe that future research into the evolution of
   Internet-based distributed computing might well benefit from studying
   adding additional namespaces as part of a new approach to distributed
   computing.

3.3.  Routing

   The currently deployed unicast routing system works reasonably well
   for most users.  However, the current unicast routing architecture is
   suboptimal in several areas, including the following: end-to-end
   convergence times in global-scale catenets (a system of networks
   interconnected via gateways); the ability of the existing inter-
   domain path-vector algorithm to scale well beyond 200K prefixes; the
   ability of both intra-domain and inter-domain routing to use multiple
   metrics and multiple kinds of metrics concurrently; and the ability
   of IPv4 and IPv6 to support widespread site multi-homing without
   undue adverse impact on the inter-domain routing system.  Integrating
   policy into routing is also a general concern, both for intra-domain
   and inter-domain routing.  In many cases, routing policy is directly
   tied to economic issues for the network operators, so applied
   research into routing ideally would consider economic considerations
   as well as technical considerations..


3.3.1.  Inter-domain Routing

   The current operational inter-domain routing system has between
   150,000 and 200,000 routing prefixes in the default-free zone (DFZ)



IAB                           Informational                    [Page 10]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


   [RFC-3221].  ASIC technology obviates concerns about the ability to
   forward packets at very high speeds.  ASIC technology also obviates
   concerns about the time required to perform longest-prefix-match
   computations.  However, some senior members of the Internet routing
   community have concerns that the end-to-end convergence properties of
   the global Internet might hit algorithmic limitations (i.e. not
   hardware limitations) when the DFZ is somewhere between 200,000 and
   300,000 prefixes.  Research into whether this concern is well-founded
   in scientific terms seems very timely.

   The current approach to site multi-homing has the highly undesirable
   side-effect of significantly increasing the growth rate of prefix
   entries in the DFZ (by impairing the deployment of prefix
   aggregation).  Research is needed into new routing architectures that
   can support large-scale site multi-homing without the undesirable
   impacts on inter-domain routing of the current multi-homing
   technique.

3.3.2.  Routing Integrity

   Recently there has been increased awareness of the longstanding issue
   of deploying strong authentication into the Internet inter-domain
   routing system.  Currently deployed mechanisms (e.g. BGP TCP MD5
   [RFC2385], OSPF MD5, RIP MD5 [RFC2082]) provide cryptographic
   authentication of routing protocol messages, but no authentication of
   the actual routing data.  Current proposals (e.g. S-BGP [KLMS2000])
   for improving this in inter-domain routing are unduly challenging to
   deploy across the Internet because of their reliance on a single
   trust hierarchy (e.g., a single PKI).  Similar proposals (e.g. OSPF
   with Digital Signatures, [RFC2154]) for intra-domain routing are
   argued to be computationally infeasible to deploy in a large network.

   Alternative approaches to authentication of data in the routing
   system need to be developed.  In particular, the ability to perform
   partial authentication of routing data would facilitate incremental
   deployment of routing authentication mechanisms.  Also, the ability
   to use non-hierarchical trust models (e.g. the web of trust used in
   the PGP application) might facilitate incremental deployment and
   might resolve existing concerns about centralized administration of
   the routing system, hence merits additional study and consideration.

3.3.3.  Routing Algorithms

   The current Internet routing system relies primarily on only three
   algorithms.  Link-state routing uses the Dijkstra algorithm
   [Dijkstra59].  The Distance-Vector and Path-Vector algorithms use the
   Bellman-Ford algorithm [Bellman1957, FF1962].  Additional ongoing
   basic research into graph theory as applied to routing is worthwhile



IAB                           Informational                    [Page 11]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


   and might yield algorithms that would enable a new routing
   architecture or otherwise provide improvements to the routing system.

   Currently deployed multicast routing relies on the Deering RPF
   algorithm [Deering1988].  Ongoing research into alternative multicast
   routing algorithms and protocols might help alleviate current
   concerns with the scalability of multicast routing.

   The deployed Internet routing system assumes that the shortest path
   is always the best path.  This is provably false, however it is a
   reasonable compromise given the routing protocols currently
   available.  The Internet lacks deployable approaches for policy-based
   routing or routing with alternative metrics (i.e. some metric other
   than the number of hops to the destination).  Examples of alternative
   policies include: the path with lowest monetary cost; the path with
   the lowest probability of packet loss; the path with minimized
   jitter; and the path with minimized latency.  Policy metrics also
   need to take business relationships into account.  Historic work on
   QoS-based routing has tended to be unsuccessful in part because it
   did not adequately consider economic/commercial considerations of the
   routing system and in part because of inadequate consideration of
   security implications.



3.3.4.  Mobile & Ad-Hoc Routing

   Mobile routing [IM1993] and mobile ad-hoc routing [RFC2501] are
   relatively recent arrivals in the Internet, and are not yet widely
   deployed.  The current approaches are not the last word in either of
   those arenas.  We believe that additional research into routing
   support for mobile hosts and mobile networks is needed.  Additional
   research for ad-hoc mobile hosts and mobile networks is also
   worthwhile.  Ideally, mobile routing and mobile ad-hoc routing
   capabilities should be native inherent capabilities of the Internet
   routing architecture.  This probably will require a significant
   evolution from the existing Internet routing architecture.  (NB: The
   term "mobility" as used here is not limited to mobile telephones, but
   instead is very broadly defined, including laptops that people carry,
   cars/trains/aircraft, and so forth.)

   Included in this topic are a wide variety of issues.  The more
   distributed and dynamic nature of partially or completely self-
   organizing routing systems (including the associated end nodes)
   creates unique security challenges (especially relating to AAA and
   key management).  Scalability of wireless networks can be difficult
   to measure or to achieve.  Enforced hierarchy is one approach, but
   can be very limiting.  Alternative, less constraining approaches to



IAB                           Informational                    [Page 12]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


   wireless scalability are desired.  Because wireless link-layer
   protocols usually have some knowledge of current link characteristics
   such as link quality, sublayer congestion conditions, or transient
   channel behavior, it is desirable to find ways to let network-layer
   routing use such data.  This raises architectural questions of what
   the proper layering should be, which functions should be in which
   layer, and also practical considerations of how and when such
   information sharing should occur in real implementations.

3.4.  Security

   The Internet has a reputation for not having sufficient security.  In
   fact, the Internet has a number of security mechanisms standardized,
   some of which are widely deployed.  However, there are a number of
   open research questions relating to Internet security.  In
   particular, security mechanisms need to be incrementally deployable
   and easy to use.  "[Security] technology must be easy to use, or it
   will not be configured correctly.  If mis-configured, security will
   be lost, but things will `work'" [S03].

3.4.1.  Freely Distributable Prototypes

   U.S.'s DARPA has historically funded development of freely
   distributable implementations of various security technologies, such
   as IP security, in a variety of operating systems.  Experience has
   shown that a good way to speed deployment of a new technology is to
   provide an unencumbered, freely-distributable prototype.  We believe
   that applied research projects in Internet security will have an
   increased probability of success if the research project teams make
   their resulting software implementations freely available for both
   commercial and non-commercial uses.  Examples of successes here
   include the DARPA funding of TCP/IPv4 integration into the 4.x BSD
   operating system [MBKQ96] and DARPA/USN funding of ESP/AH design and
   integration into 4.4 BSD [Atk96].

3.4.2.  Formal Methods

   There is an ongoing need for funding of basic research relating to
   Internet security, including funding of formal methods research that
   relates to security algorithms, protocols, and systems.  For example,
   while there has been significant work into hierarchical security
   models (e.g. Bell-Lapadula) [BL1976], there has not been adequate
   formal study of alternative security models (e.g. PGP's Web-of-Trust
   model).  Use of a hierarchical trust model creates significant
   limitations in how one might approach securing components of the
   Internet, for example the DNS, or the inter-domain routing system.
   So research to develop new trust models or on the applicability of
   existing non-hierarchical trust models to existing problems would be



IAB                           Informational                    [Page 13]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


   worthwhile.

   While there has been some work on the application of formal methods
   to cryptographic algorithms and cryptographic protocols, existing
   techniques for formal evaluation of algorithms and protocols lack
   sufficient automation.  This lack of automation means that many
   protocols aren't formally evaluated in a timely manner.  This is
   problematic for the Internet because formal evaluation has often
   uncovered serious anomalies in cryptographic protocols.  The creation
   of automated tools for applying formal methods to cryptographic
   algorithms and/or protocols would be very helpful.

3.4.3.  Key Management

   A recurring challenge to the Internet community is how to design,
   implement, and deploy key management appropriate to the myriad
   security contexts existing in the global Internet.  Most current work
   in unicast key management has focused on hierarchical trust models,
   because much of the existing work has been driven by corporate or
   military "top-down" operating models.

   The absence of key management methods applicable to non-hierarchical
   trust models (see above) is a significant constraint on the
   approaches that might be taken to secure components of the Internet.
   Research focused on removing those constraints by developing
   practical key management methods applicable to non-hierarchical trust
   models would be very helpful.

   Topics worthy of additional research include key management
   techniques, such as non-hierarchical key management architectures
   (e.g. to support non-hierarchical trust models; see above), that are
   useful by ad-hoc groups in mobile networks and/or distributed
   computing.

   Although some progress has been made in recent years, scalable
   multicast key management is far from being a solved problem.
   Existing approaches to scalable multicast key management add
   significant constraints on the problem scope in order to come up with
   a deployable technical solution.  Having a more general approach to
   scalable multicast key management (i.e. one having broader
   applicability and fewer constraints) would enhance the Internet's
   capabilities.

   In many cases, attribute negotiation is an important capability of a
   key management protocol.  Experience with the Internet Key Exchange
   (IKE) to date has been that it is unduly complex.  Much of IKE's
   complexity derives from its very general attribute negotiation
   capabilities.  A new key management approach that supported



IAB                           Informational                    [Page 14]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


   significant attribute negotiation without creating challenging levels
   of deployment and operations complexity would be helpful.

3.4.4  Cryptography

   There is an ongoing need to continue the open-world research funding
   into both cryptography and cryptanalysis.  Most governments focus
   their cryptographic research in the military-sector.  While this is
   understandable, those efforts often have limited (or no) publications
   in the open literature.  Since the Internet engineering community
   must work from the open literature, it is important that open-world
   research continues in the future.

3.4.5  Security for Distributed Computing

   MIT's Project Athena was an important and broadly successful research
   project into distributed computing.  Project Athena developed the
   Kerberos [RFC-1510] security system, which has significant deployment
   today in campus environments.  However, inter-realm Kerberos is
   neither as widely deployed nor perceived as widely successful as
   single-realm Kerberos.  The need for scalable inter-domain user
   authentication is increasingly acute as ad-hoc computing and mobile
   computing become more widely deployed.  Thus, work on scalable
   mechanisms for mobile, ad-hoc, and non-hierarchical inter-domain
   authentication would be very helpful.

3.4.6.  Deployment Considerations in Security

   Lots of work has been done on theoretically perfect security that is
   impossible to deploy.  Unfortunately, Kent's S-BGP proposal is an
   example of a good research product that has significant unresolved
   deployment challenges. It is far from obvious how one could widely
   deploy S-BGP without previously deploying a large-scale inter-domain
   public-key infrastructure and also centralising route advertisement
   policy enforcement in the Routing Information Registries or some
   similiar body.  Historically, public-key infrastructures have been
   either very difficult or impossible to deploy at large scale.  Some
   have recently suggested that the PGP web-of-trust authentication
   model should be applied to inter-domain advertisement of routing
   prefixes [Schiller03].  Security mechanisms that need additional
   infrastructure have not been deployed well.  We desperately need
   security that is general, easy to install, and easy to manage.

3.4.7.  Denial of Service Protection

   Historically, the Internet community has mostly ignored pure Denial
   of Service (DoS) attacks.  This was appropriate at one time since
   such attacks were rare and are hard to defend against.  However, one



IAB                           Informational                    [Page 15]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


   of the recent trends in malware (viruses, worms, etc.)  has been the
   incorporation of features that turn the infected host into a
   "zombie".  Such zombies can be remotely controlled to mount a
   distributed denial of service attack on some victim machine.  This
   makes the design of anti-DoS measures of high importance to the
   Internet.  Some work has been done on this front [Sav00], [MBFIPS01],
   but more is needed.

3.5.  Network Management

   The Internet had early success in network device monitoring with the
   Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) and its associated
   Management Information Base (MIB).  There has been comparatively less
   success in managing networks, in contrast to the hierarchical
   monitoring of individual devices.

   Unfortunately, network management research has historically been very
   underfunded, because it is difficult to get funding bodies to
   recognize this as legitimate networking research.

3.5.1.  Configuration Management

   Operators at the IAB Network Management Workshop [RFC-3535] held in
   2002 reported that scalable distributed configuration management for
   sets of network devices is a significant challenge today.  An
   enhanced network management architecture that more fully supports
   real operational needs is desirable.  Even individual improvements in
   configuration management for sets of networked devices would be very
   welcome.  Such improvements would need to include an integrated
   approach to security for the configuration data.

3.5.1.  Enhanced Monitoring Capabilities

   SNMP does not scale very well to monitoring large numbers of objects
   in many devices in different parts of the network.  An alternative
   approach worth exploring is how to provide scalable and distributed
   monitoring, not on individual devices, but instead on groups of
   devices and networks-as-a-whole.

3.5.2.  Managing Networks, Not Devices

   In particular, at present there are few or no good tools for managing
   a whole network of devices, though SNMP (Simple Network Management
   Protocol) and CMIP (Common Management Information Protocol) are fine
   for reading status of well-defined objects from individual boxes.
   Applied research into methods of managing sets of networked devices
   seems worthwhile.  Ideally this configuration management approach
   would support distributed management, rather than being strictly



IAB                           Informational                    [Page 16]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


   hierarchical.

   As an example, the current set of network management tools for
   managing multimedia (voice and video) IP networks is inadequate, and
   research would be useful in this area.  The lack of appropriate
   network management tools has also been cited as one of the major
   barriers to the deployment of IP multicast [D00, SP03].

3.5.3.  Improving the Scalability of Network Management

   An open issue related to network management is helping users and
   others to identify and resolve problems in the network.  If a user
   can't access a web page, it would be useful if the user could find
   out, easily, without having to run ping and traceroute, whether the
   problem was that the web server was down, that the network was
   partitioned due to a link failure, that there was heavy congestion
   along the path, that the DNS name couldn't be resolved, that the
   firewall prohibited the access, or something else.  Current
   approaches to network management do not scale sufficiently, so
   network service providers and enterprises often have difficulty
   operating their network(s) as successfully and economically as
   desired.  Hence, more work is needed to improve the scalability of
   network management systems.  This might involve application of
   artificial intelligence, expert systems technology, or other
   mechanisms, for example.

3.6.  Quality of Service

   There has been an intensive body of research and development work on
   adding QoS to the Internet architecture for more than ten years now
   [RFC-1633, RFC-2474, RFC-3260, RFC-2205, RFC-2210], yet we still
   don't have end-to-end QoS in the Internet [RFC-2990].  The IETF is
   good at defining individual QoS mechanisms, but poor at work on
   deployable QoS architectures.  Thus, while Differentiated Services
   (DiffServ) mechanisms have been standardized as per-hop behaviors,
   there is still much to be learned about the deployment of that or
   other QoS mechanisms for end-to-end QoS.  In addition to work on
   purely technical issues, this includes close attention to the
   economic models and deployment strategies that would enable an
   increased deployment of QoS in the network.

   In many cases, deployment of QoS mechanisms would significantly
   increase operational security risks [RFC-2990], so any new research
   on QoS mechanisms or architectures ought to specifically discuss the
   potential security issues associated with the new proposal(s) and how
   to mitigate those security issues.

   One of the factors that has blunted the demand for QoS has been the



IAB                           Informational                    [Page 17]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


   transition of the Internet infrastructure from heavy congestion in
   the early 1990s, to overprovisioning in backbones and in many
   international links now.  Thus, research in QoS mechanisms also has
   to include some careful attention to the relative costs and benefits
   of QoS in different places in the network.  Applied research into QoS
   should include explicit consideration of economic issues of deploying
   and operating a QoS-enabled IP network [Clark02].

3.6.1.  Inter-Domain QoS Architecture

   Deploying existing Quality-of-Service (QoS) mechanisms, for example
   Differentiated Services or Integrated Services, across an inter-
   domain boundary creates a significant and easily exploited denial-of-
   service vulnerability for any network that provides inter-domain QoS
   support.  This has caused network operators to refrain from
   supporting inter-domain QoS.  The Internet would benefit from
   additional research into alternative approaches to QoS, approaches
   that do not create such vulnerabilities and can be deployed end-to-
   end [RFC-2990].

   Also, current business models are not consistent with inter-domain
   QoS, in large part because it is impractical or impossible to
   authenticate the identity of the sender of would-be preferred traffic
   while still forwarding traffic at line-rate.  Absent such an ability,
   it is unclear how a network operator could bill or otherwise recover
   costs associated with providing that preferred service.  So any new
   work on inter-domain QoS mechanisms and architectures needs to
   carefully consider the economic and security implications of such
   proposals.

3.6.2.  New Queuing Disciplines

   The overall Quality-of-Service for traffic is in part determined by
   the scheduling and queue management mechanisms at the routers.  While
   there are a number of existing mechanisms (e.g. RED) that work
   reasonably well, it is possible that improved queuing strategies
   might be devised.  Mechanisms that lowered the implementation cost in
   IP routers might help increase deployment of active queue management,
   for example.

3.7.  Congestion control.

   TCP's congestion control mechanisms, from 1988 [J88], have been a key
   factor in maintaining the stability of the Internet, and are used by
   the bulk of the Internet's traffic.  However, the congestion control
   mechanisms of the Internet need to be expanded and modified to meet a
   wide range of new stresses, from new applications such as streaming
   media and multicast to new environments such as wireless networks or



IAB                           Informational                    [Page 18]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


   very high bandwidth paths, and new requirements for minimizing
   queueing delay.  While there are significant bodies of work in
   several of these issues, considerably more needs to be done.  (We
   would note that research on TCP congestion control is also not yet
   "done", with much still to be accomplished in high-speed TCP, or in
   adding robust performance over paths with significant reordering,
   intermittent connectivity, non-congestive packet loss, and the like.)

   Several of these issues bring up difficult fundamental questions
   about the potential costs and benefits of increased communication
   between layers.  Would it help transport to receive hints or other
   information from routing, from link layers, or from other transport-
   level connections?  If so, what would be the cost to robust operation
   across diverse environments?

   For congestion control mechanisms in routers, active queue management
   and Explicit Congestion Notification are generally not yet deployed,
   and there are a range of proposals, in various states of maturity, in
   this area.  At the same time, there is a great deal that we still do
   not understand about the interactions of queue management mechanisms
   with other factors in the network.  Router-based congestion control
   mechanisms are also needed for detecting and responding to aggregate
   congestion such as in Distributed Denial of Service attacks and flash
   crowds.

   As more applications have the need to transfer very large files over
   high delay-bandwidth-product paths, the stresses on current
   congestion control mechanisms raise the question of whether we need
   more fine-grained feedback from routers.  This includes the challenge
   of allowing connections to avoid the delays of slow-start, and to
   rapidly make use of newly-available bandwidth.

   There is also a need for long-term research in congestion control
   that is separate from specific functional requirements like the ones
   listed above.  We know very little about congestion control dynamics
   or traffic dynamics a large, complex network like the global
   Internet, with its heterogeneous and changing traffic mixes, link-
   level technologies, network protocols and router mechanisms, patterns
   of congestion, pricing models, and the like.  Expanding our knowledge
   in this area seems likely to require a rich mix of measurement,
   analysis, simulations, and experimentation.

3.8.  Studying the Evolution of the Internet Infrastructure

   The evolution of the Internet infrastructure has been frustratingly
   slow and difficult, with long stories about the difficulties in
   adding IPv6, QoS, multicast, and other functionality to the Internet.
   We need a more scientific understanding of the evolutionary



IAB                           Informational                    [Page 19]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


   potentials and evolutionary difficulties of the Internet
   infrastructure.

   This evolutionary potential is affected not only by the technical
   issues of the layered IP architecture, but by other factors as well.
   These factors include the changes in the environment over time (e.g.,
   the recent overprovisioning of backbones, the deployment of
   firewalls), and the role of standardization process.  Economic and
   public policy factors are also critical, including the central fact
   of the Internet as a decentralized system, with key players being not
   only individuals, but also ISPs, companies, and entire industries.
   Deployment issues are also key factors in the evolution of the
   Internet, including the continual chicken-and-egg problem of having
   enough customers to merit rolling out a service whose utility depends
   on the size of the customer base in the first place.

   Overlay networks might serve as a transition technology for new
   functionality, with an initial deployment in overlay networks, and
   with the new functionality moving later into the core if it seems
   warranted.

   There are also increased obstacles to the evolution of the Internet
   in the form of increased complexity [WD02], unanticipated feature
   interactions [K00], interactions between layers [CWWS92],
   interventions by middleboxes [RFC-3424], and the like.  Because
   increasing complexity appears inevitable, research is needed to
   understand architectural mechanisms that can accommodate increased
   complexity without decreasing robustness of performance in unknown
   environments, and without closing off future possibilities for
   evolution.

3.9.  Middleboxes

   Research is needed to address the challenges posed by middleboxes.
   This includes issues of security, control, and data integrity, and on
   the general impact of middleboxes on the architecture.

   In many ways middleboxes are a direct outgrowth of commercial
   interests, but there is a need to look beyond the near-term needs for
   the technology, to research its broader implications and to explore
   ways to improve how middleboxes are integrated into the architecture.

3.10.  Internet Measurement

   A recurring challenge is measuring the Internet; there have been many
   discussions about the need for measurement studies as an integral
   part of Internet research [Claffy03].  In this discussion, we define
   measurement quite broadly.  For example, there are numerous



IAB                           Informational                    [Page 20]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


   challenges in measuring performance along any substantial Internet
   path, particularly when the path crosses administrative domain
   boundaries.  There are also challenges in measuring
   protocol/application usage on any high speed Internet link.  Many of
   the problems discussed above would benefit from increased frequency
   of measurement as well as improved quality of measurement on the
   deployed Internet.

   A key issue in network measurement is that most commercial Internet
   Service Providers consider the particular characteristics of their
   production IP network(s) to be trade secrets.  Ways need to be found
   for legitimate non-commercial researchers to be able to measure
   relevant network parameters while also protecting the privacy rights
   of the measured ISPs.

   Absent measured data, there is possibly an over-reliance on network
   simulations in some parts of the Internet research community and
   probably insufficient validation that existing network simulation
   models are reasonably good representations of the deployed Internet
   (or of some plausible future Internet) [FK02].

   Without solid measurement of the current Internet behaviour, it is
   very difficult to know what otherwise unknown operational problems
   exist that require attention, and it is equally difficult to fully
   understand the impact of changes (past or future) upon the Internet's
   actual behavioural characteristics.

3.11.  Meeting the Needs of the Future

   As network size, link bandwidth, CPU capacity, and the number of
   users all increase, research will be needed to ensure that the
   Internet of the future scales to meet these increasing demands.  We
   have discussed some of these scaling issues in specific sections
   above.

   However, for all of the research questions discussed in this
   document, the goal of the research must be not only to meet the
   challenges already experienced today, but also to meet the challenges
   that can be expected to emerge in the future.

3.12.  Additional topics

   We have not included in this document discussions about the need for
   additional research in providing tools for researchers (e.g.,
   modeling, simulations, test-beds).

   Any new sections in this document should be focused on the problems
   that need to be addressed, rather than focused on the new approaches



IAB                           Informational                    [Page 21]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


   or technologies that might be promising answers to those problems.

4.  Conclusions

   This document has summarized the history of research funding for the
   Internet and highlighted examples of open research questions.  The
   IAB believes that more research is required to further the evolution
   of the Internet infrastructure, and that consistent, sufficient non-
   commercial funding is needed to enable such research.

   In case there is any confusion, we are not in this document
   suggesting any direct or indirect role for the IAB, the IETF, or the
   IRTF in handling any funding for Internet research.

5.  Acknowledgements

   The people who directly contributed to this document in some form
   include the following: Ran Atkinson, Rob Austein, Jon Crowcroft,
   Sally Floyd, James Kempf, Craig Partridge, Vern Paxson, and Mike St.
   Johns.  We are also grateful to Kim Claffy, Andrei Gurtov, Hilarie
   Orman for feedback.

   We have also drawn widely on the following sources: [CIPB02],
   [IST02], [NV02], [NSF02], [NSF03], [NSF03a].

   Upcoming workshops include the following: [COST-NSF03].

6.  Security Considerations

   This document does not itself create any new security issues for the
   Internet community.  Security issues within the Internet Architecture
   primarily are discussed in Section 3.4 above.

7.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA considerations regarding this document.

Normative References

   There are no Normative References because this is an Informational
   document.

Informative References

   [Atk96] R. Atkinson et alia, "Implementation of IPv6 in 4.4 BSD",
   Proceedings of USENIX 1996 Annual Technical Conference, USENIX
   Association, Berkeley, CA, January 1996.




IAB                           Informational                    [Page 22]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


   [Bellman1957] R.E. Bellman, "Dynamic Programming", Princeton
   University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1957.

   [BL1976] D. E. Bell & L. J. LaPadula, "Secure Computer Systems:
   Unified Exposition and Multics Interpretation", MITRE Technical
   Report NMTR-1997 (ESD-TR-75-306), The Mitre Corporation, March 1976.

   [Claffy03] K. Claffy, "Priorities and Challenges in Internet
   Measurement, Simulation, and Analysis", NSF PI meeting, January 2003.
   URL "http://www.caida.org/outreach/presentations/2003/nsfpi0301/".

   [Clark02] D. D. Clark, "Deploying the Internet - why does it take so
   long and, can research help ?", Large-Scale Networking Distinguished
   Lecture Series, (US) National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, 8
   January 2002.  URL: http://www.ngi-supernet.org/conferences.html

   [CSTB99] Computer Science & Telecommunications Board, (US) National
   Research Council, "Funding a Revolution: Government Support for
   Computing Research", National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1999.
   URL "http://www7.nationalacademies.org/cstb/pub_revolution.html".

   [CIPB02] Critical Infrastructure Protection Board, "National Strategy
   to Secure Cyberspace", The White House, Washington, DC, September
   2002, URL "http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb".

   [COST-NSF03] COST-IST(EU)--NSF(USA) Workshop on Networking, June,
   2003.  URL "http://cgi.di.uoa.gr/~istavrak/costnsf/".

   [CWWS92] J. Crowcroft, I Wakeman, Z. Wang, & D. Sirovica, "Is
   Layering Harmful ?", IEEE Networks, January 1992.

   [Diot00] C. Diot, et alia, "Deployment Issues for the IP Multicast
   Service and Architecture", IEEE Network, January/February 2000.

   [Deering1988] S. Deering, "Multicast Routing in Internetworks and
   LANs", ACM Computer Communications Review, Volume 18, Issue 4, August
   1988.

   [Dijkstra59] E. Dijkstra, "A note on two problems in connexion with
   graphs", Numerishe Mathematik, 1, 1959, pp.269-271.

   [FF1962] L.R. Ford Jr. & D.R. Fulkerson, "Flows in Networks",
   Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1962.

   [FK02] S. Floyd and E. Kohler, Internet Research Needs Better Models,
   Hotnets-I. October 2002.  URL
   "http://www.icir.org/models/bettermodels.html".




IAB                           Informational                    [Page 23]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


   [Handley02] Mark Handley's viewgraphs to an NSF meeting, 2002.

   [IM1993] J. Ioannidis & G. Maguire Jr., "The Design and
   Implementation of a Mobile Internetworking Architecture", Proceedings
   of the Winter USENIX Technical Conference, pages 489-500, January
   1993.

   [IST02] Research Networking in Europe - Striving for Global
   Leadership, Information Society Technologies, 2002.  URL
   "http://www.cordis.lu/ist/rn/rn-brochure.htm".

   [J88] Van Jacobson, Congestion Avoidance and Control, SIGCOMM, 1988.
   URL "http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/jacobson88congestion.html".

   [J02] William Jackson, "U.S. should fund R&D for secure Internet
   protocols, Clarke says", 10/31/02, URL
   "http://www.gcn.com/vol1_no1/security/20382-1.html".

   [K00] Hans Kruse, The Pitfalls of Distributed Protocol Development:
   Unintentional Interactions between Network Operations and
   Applications Protocols, 8th International Conference on
   Telecommunication Systems Design, Nashville, March 2000.  URL
   "http://www.csm.ohiou.edu/kruse/publications/TSYS2000.pdf".

   [KLMS2000] S. Kent, C. Lynn, J. Mikkelson, & K. Seo, "Secure Border
   Gateway Protocol (S-BGP)", Proceedings of ISoc Network & Distributed
   Systems Security Symposium, Internet Society, Reston, VA, February
   2000.

   [LD2002] E. Lear & R. Droms, "What's in a Name: Thoughts from the
   NSRG", Internet-Draft, December 2002.

   [MBFIPS01] Ratul Mahajan, Steven M. Bellovin, Sally Floyd, John
   Ioannidis, Vern Paxson, and Scott Shenker, Controlling High Bandwidth
   Aggregates in the Network (Extended Version), July, 2001.  URL
   "http://www.icir.org/pushback/".

   [MBKQ96] M. McKusick, K. Bostic, M. Karels, & J. Quarterman, "Design
   and Implementation of the 4.4 BSD Operating System", Addison-Wesley,
   Reading, MA, 1996.

   [S03] J. I. Schiller, "Interception Technology: The Good, The Bad,
   and The Ugly!", NANOG, June 2003.  URL
   "http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0306/schiller.html".

   [Schiller03] J. I. Schiller, Private Communication, MIT, Cambridge,
   MA.  2003.




IAB                           Informational                    [Page 24]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


   [NV02] NetVision 2012 Committee,"DARPA's Ten-Year Strategic Plan for
   Networking Research", (US) Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency,
   October 2002.  Citation for acknowledgement purposes only.

   [NSF02] NSF Workshop on Network Research Testbeds, October 2002.  URL
   "http://www-net.cs.umass.edu/testbed_workshop/".

   [NSF03] NSF ANIR Principal Investigator meeting, January 9-10, 2003,
   URL "http://www.ncne.org/training/nsf-pi/2003/nsfpimain.html".

   [NSF03a] Revolutionizing Science and Engineering Through
   Cyberinfrastructure, NSF Report, January 2003.  URL
   "http://www.cise.nsf.gov/evnt/reports/atkins_annc_020303.htm".

   [ResearchQuestions] Web Page on "Papers about Research Questions for
   the Internet", URL
   "http://www.icir.org/floyd/research_questions.html".

   [RFC-1510] J. Kohl & C. Neuman, "The Kerberos Network Authentication
   Service (V5)", RFC 1510, September 1993.

   [RFC-2082] F. Baker & R. Atkinson, "RIPv2 MD5 Authentication",
   RFC-2082, January 1997.

   [RFC-2154] S. Murphy, M. Badger, & B. Wellington, "OSPF with Digital
   Signatures", RFC-2154, June 1997.

   [RFC-2385] A. Heffernan, "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5
   Signature Option", RFC-2385, August 1998.

   [RFC-2407] D. Piper, "The Internet IP Security Domain of
   Interpretation for ISAKMP", RFC-2407, November 1998.

   [RFC-2501] S. Corson & J. Macker, "Mobile Ad Hoc Networking (MANET):
   Routing Protocol Performance Issues and Evaluation Considerations",
   RFC-2501, January 1999.

   [RFC-2990] G. Huston, "Next Steps for the IP QoS Architecture",
   RFC-1990, November 2000.

   [RFC-3221] G. Huston, "Commentary on Inter-Domain Routing in the
   Internet", RFC-3221, December 2001.

   [RFC-3424] L. Daigle (Ed.), "IAB Considerations for Unilateral Self-
   Address Fixing (UNSAF) Across Network Address Translation", RFC-3424,
   Internet Architecture Board, November 2002.

   [RFC-3535] J. Schoenwalder, Editor, "Overfiew of the 2002 IAB Network



IAB                           Informational                    [Page 25]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003


   Management Workshop", RFC-3535, May 2003.

   [RIPE] RIPE (Reseaux IP Europeens), URL "http://www.ripe.net/ripe/".

   [Sav00] Savage, S., Wetherall, D., Karlink, A. R., and Anderson, T.,
   Practical Network Support for IP Traceback, SIGCOMM 2000.

   [SP03] P. Sharma & R. Malpani, "IP Multicast Operational Network
   Management: Design, Challenges, and Experiences", IEEE Network, March
   2003.

   [WD02] Walter Willinger and John Doyle, "Robustness and the Internet:
   Design and Evolution", 2002, URL
   "http://netlab.caltech.edu/internet/".

   [WIDE] WIDE Project, URL "http://www.wide.ad.jp/".

9. AUTHORS' ADDRESSES


   Internet Architecture Board
   EMail:  iab@iab.org

   Internet Architecture Board Members
   at the time this document was published were:

   Bernard Aboba
   Harald Alvestrand (IETF chair)
   Rob Austein
   Leslie Daigle (IAB chair)
   Patrik Faltstrom
   Sally Floyd
   Jun-ichiro Itojun Hagino
   Mark Handley
   Geoff Huston (IAB Executive Director)
   Charlie Kaufman
   James Kempf
   Eric Rescorla
   Mike St. Johns

   We note that Ran Atkinson, one of the editors of the document,
   was an IAB member at the time that this document was created,
   and that Vern Paxson, the IRTF chair, is an ex-officio member
   of the IAB.

   This draft was created in November 2002 and revised January 2003,
   February 2003, and June 2003.




IAB                           Informational                    [Page 26]


draft-iab-research-funding                                     June 2003





















































IAB                           Informational                    [Page 27]