IETF: The Internet Engineering Task Force, Research Paper Example

Background and History

The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stands as a paradigm of an operation coming into existence in an evolutionary manner. No specific agency determined that there was a new and urgent need for such a task force, and no government assumed the role of creating one and maintaining authority over it. The reality is simply that, by 1986, the Internet had taken on such proportions that it was evident to all concerned with it that a presence be established, to provide Internet production standards in keeping with users’ needs and expectations.

While United States government agencies were largely instrumental in the formation of the IEF, it has consistently maintained a global and non-partisan identity. Basically, the IETF is beholden to no organization and pursues no agenda other than its own, an ideology made clear in its accessible, welcoming mission statement: “The IETF is completely open to newcomers. There is no formal membership, no membership fee, and nothing to sign…the IETF will always view you as an individual, and never as a company representative” (IETF website).

Interestingly, initial interest and activity was minor. While the 1980’s were marked by a surge in Internet productivity, it is arguable that the very speed of this surge worked against the setting up of such a task force. The Internet was happening fast, and globally, and adaptations were made at the same pace. Fortunately, a number of Internet researchers and developers looked ahead and saw that progress was dependent upon a set of standards all participants could both create and accept.

There was, again, not a great deal of excitement generated by the IETF’s advent: “Representatives from non-government were invited…with less than 35 people in attendance at each of the first five meetings” (DiBona, Ockman, 1999, p. 48). Not unexpectedly, however, the membership rolls have consistently and exponentially grown. The IETF stands today as something of a gentle giant, internationally recognized and turned to as the arbiter in what promotes successful Internet architecture and, above all, a viable and globally efficient running of the Internet.

The Organization’s Purpose and Commitment

An interesting dilemma automatically presents itself, when the matter of setting Internet standards is the issue: namely, that of keeping pace with advances and, furthermore, taking the time necessary to assess their qualities and drawbacks. Programs and platforms have been developed at truly striking rates of speed since the Internet first took hold, and that speed increases continually. The question must arise of how, when innovations in technology come so rapidly, any proper determination of their lasting value and applicability can be made in a timely manner.

As with other aspects of its existence, the IETF answers this question simply by virtue of that existence. This refers to that evolutionary element of it alluded to earlier, in that it has been created by the forces which require it. Even the most innovation-driven Internet architect or programmer must concede that the work has little value if it cannot be successfully incorporated into the working Internet, and the IETF is in place to provide what is, essentially, the filter. A parallel could be made with the Food and Drug Administration; nothing is being officially released until its efficacy and safety have been authorized.

The crucial difference, however, is that freedom from governmental influence the IETF enjoys. Since its purpose is to ensure the best possible running and enhancing of the Internet, its members understand that their own interests are served in complying with it. In fact, and another vital component in the stability and regard the IETF possesses, that compliance is the result of the process, and not merely an issue to be signed off on. The IETF depends upon serious, interactive, collaborative work; Internet architects and programmers, acting either individually or as representatives of an organization, come to it as scientists utilizing to the best equipped laboratory at hand.

As may be expected, the IETF boasts a superior and comprehensive website, one that reflects the simplicity of the organization’s agenda and simultaneously offers accessible information regarding its various functions. The newcomer to it is guided there in every aspect of the IETF’s presence, and learns that working groups are the primary mechanisms of it. There is a sensible and compelling “cell” quality to this methodology: “Working Groups are typically created to address a specific problem or to produce one or more specific deliverables (a guideline, standards specification, etc.)…Upon completion of its goals and achievement of its objectives, the Working Group is terminated” (IETF website).  A task is either suggested or introduced from an outside member, a team is assembled to address it, and then the team disbands.

Given the workings of the Internet, much of the IETF’s work deals with sophisticated and complex programming, computer applications, languages, and platforms. One single link from the website’s page, for example, is devoted to Internet Protocol Registries, and has within it hundreds of further links to updated standards and specifications on error codes, traffic action fields, security types, encryption capabilities, and a great deal more. All of these elements either have undergone evaluation by the IEF or are in the process of being assessed, and the process is, again, exacting. The Standards Process statement fully acknowledges this,  referring to the complicated steps required to obtain the fairly straightforward outcome of standardization.

It appears that the IETF is structured in a way that mirrors the workings of the Internet itself, albeit of a well-run and precisely monitored manifestation of it. Everything is properly departmentalized in an infrastructure as tightly regulated as any computer system. Working groups, for instance, are not merely put together to address an issue, but are composed of teams expert in various, chief aspects of Internet use and design, such as routing, security, applications, and management. The working groups within these larger arenas report to area directors, who are responsible for assembling them initially, and the area directors, with the current chair, comprise the Internet Engineering Steering Group. This is, essentially, the heart of the IETF.

Guiding Principles and Import

As noted, the IETF is beholden to no authoritative power. This was, in its early days, an issue; the new organization commanded no regard in the industry because, essentially, it had no backing: “In the early 1990’s, the IETF had considerable difficulty dealing with established organizations…which were unprepared to view the loosely-formed, grass-roots-oriented, consensus-building IETF as a genuine standards making body” (Telecom Standards, 2001, p. 7).

What has served the IETF well, however, is the simplicity of its core purpose.  As it operates only to support and improve the Internet standards employed uniformly and globally, it then exponentially builds an inherent credibility factor. Primarily, it exists to determine efficiency, and is unconcerned with motivations or potential barriers in translation. Its job is not to determine the why of an operation, but its workability: “The consensus within the IETF was that the IETF is not in the business of defining programming languages, and therefore was not going to define a policy language either” (Chadha, Kant, 2007, p. 66).  Those coming to the IETF with proposals, modifications, or problems bring to the organization the integrity it requires. This is the beauty of the IETF genesis, in that it can only function well when it effectively pleases its own, vitally interactive, membership.

Ultimately, too, this translates to how the IETF determines the standards it sets forth. In a very real sense, the IETF is a democracy in action. Consensus of informed opinion is its guiding principle and the final arbiter of what will succeed in the Internet on a widespread scale. Composed only of volunteers coming to it with the desire to safely implement and/or standardize Internet practices, the IETF virtually ensures itself a stable and consistently effective future.

References

Chadha, R., and Kant, L. (2007.) Policy Driven Mobile Ad Hoc Network Management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

DiBona, C., and Ockman, S. (1999.) Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly & Associates, Inc.

Internet Engineering Task Force Website. Located at http://www.ietf.org; retrieved on February 2, 2011.

Telecom Standards Newsletter (August, 2001.) “Standard Groups.” Retrieved from Vol. 10, No. Date of access: February 2, 2011.