Subject: [edu-team] edu class proposal for 67

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:24:10 -0400

hi,

Here is my suggestion for the classes schedule for IETF67.

a. newcomers
b. rfc editor
c. mib module writing

session 2

a. bringing new work (new)
b. wg leadership (updated)
c. security (updated)

Since all of the classes in session 2 require either writing or  
updating, i think this will involve more active work on on out parts  
over the next few months.

Please comment of the selection.  I need to get the information to  
Marcia as soon as I can.

Also there is interest in having an SCTP tutorial.  I have asked  
those who suggested it to write up a brief outline of what they would  
cover so the team can review it and decide on it.  At this point I  
think that IETF68 would be the target for this - especially since,  
given the new announcement procedures, we should try to have the  
IETF68 schedule set before IETF67.

thanks

a.

_______________________________________________
edu-team mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-team

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:41:28 -0400

This looks good to me.

Margaret

On Jul 14, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> updating, i think this will involve more active work on on out  
> parts over the next few months.
>
> those who suggested it to write up a brief outline of what they  
> would cover so the team can review it and decide on it.  At this  
> point I think that IETF68 would be the target for this - especially  
> since, given the new announcement procedures, we should try to have  
> the IETF68 schedule set before IETF67.
>
>
> thanks
>
> a.
>
>

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:17:54 -0400

I like the class list proposal.

I spoke with Randall (the SCTP guy) and told him that what we really know is 
OK for EDU technical tutorials would be "here's what you need to know about 
SCTP in order to do your work at the IETF", and he said, "thank you for the 
hint".

Based on discussions about SCTP in SIP, etc., I think that's actually true. 
If other people need to tell him the RIGHT answer, I am not offended (it was 
after the second plenary, and during a weak moment.

("... during a WEEK moment ...")

Travel home safely and see you in San Diego,

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Avri Doria" <[email-masked]>
To: "EDU Team" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 11:24 AM
Subject: [edu-team] edu class proposal for 67

> Since all of the classes in session 2 require either writing or  updating, 
> i think this will involve more active work on on out parts  over the next 
> few months.
>
> Please comment of the selection.  I need to get the information to  Marcia 
> as soon as I can.
>
> Also there is interest in having an SCTP tutorial.  I have asked  those 
> who suggested it to write up a brief outline of what they would  cover so 
> the team can review it and decide on it.  At this point I  think that 
> IETF68 would be the target for this - especially since,  given the new 
> announcement procedures, we should try to have the  IETF68 schedule set 
> before IETF67.
>
>
> thanks
>
> a.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:08:49 +0200

OK for the 67 plan. I also told Ran Stewart that
any tutorial on SCTP needs to be oriented towards
telling people how to work it into IETF specs rather
than just a technology class. Indeed, if SCTP is to
become useful, it needs to be considered as a transport
by many other WGs.

    Brian

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> I spoke with Randall (the SCTP guy) and told him that what we really 
> know is OK for EDU technical tutorials would be "here's what you need to 
> know about SCTP in order to do your work at the IETF", and he said, 
> "thank you for the hint".
> 
> Based on discussions about SCTP in SIP, etc., I think that's actually 
> true. If other people need to tell him the RIGHT answer, I am not 
> offended (it was after the second plenary, and during a weak moment.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Avri Doria" <[email-masked]>

---

From: "Susan R. Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 08:25:34 -0400 (EDT)

What she said.

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

>> Since all of the classes in session 2 require either writing or updating, i 
>> think this will involve more active work on on out parts over the next few 
>> months.
>> 
>> Also there is interest in having an SCTP tutorial.  I have asked those who 
>> suggested it to write up a brief outline of what they would cover so the 
>> team can review it and decide on it.  At this point I think that IETF68 
>> would be the target for this - especially since, given the new announcement 
>> procedures, we should try to have the IETF68 schedule set before IETF67.
>> 
>> 
>> thanks
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>>

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:07:53 -0400

> Indeed, if SCTP is to become useful, it needs to be considered as a
> transport by many other WGs.

Getting way off-topic, but SCTP suffers from the problem that
basically, only 10% (at best) of the applications actually need any of
the features it provides over TCP. So, there is very little
justification for using SCTP.

Then, since the SCTP implementors (e.g., the OS stack) and the
applications are done by different players, it's hard for any
application to actually rely on SCTP since the application product
group has almost no leverage over getting something into an OS
(especially one provided by another vendor).

Thomas

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:24:16 -0400

Next Steps ...

> a. newcomers

Scott has agreed to teach this one again.  Thank you Scott.
I am assuming the previous write up for the IETF web page is still  
valid.
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/Tutorial_Newcomer.txt

> b. rfc editor

Still taught by the RC Editor
http://www.ietf.org/meetings//Tutorial_RFC.txt

> c. mib module writing

Will again be taught by Bert. Write up remains the same.
http://www.ietf.org/meetings//Tutorial_MIB.txt

> a. bringing new work (new)

Thomas has agreed to teach it.  thank you Thomas.

We need a one or two paragraph, as soon as possible, describing the  
class for the IETF web signup pages.

Thomas: I also, I don't know if you want any help in writing this  
class?  Or if there are those who want to volunteer to help.

> b. wg leadership (updated)

According to conversations the team had before '66 i understood that  
we needed to do a review of this class.  Also, we need to determine  
who will be teaching this class.  Paul has indicated he is willing to  
do so, but Spencer indicated a willingness to be replaced - with  
Margaret indicating a willingness to take over.  Is a Paul and  
Margaret team teaching a good and willing combo (assuming i write  
about collective willingness correctly)?

Also does the description need to be updated?  I can't find it  
online, but have appended it.

pervious presentations can be found at: http://edu.ietf.org/wgchairs

> c. security (updated)

Some of the comments we have received on this class indicate it needs  
to be oriented more toward helping WG participants with the task of  
including security in the designs and in their documents then with an  
introduction to a complex field.  Radia has indicated that she is  
willing to rework the presentation and Russ, AD Security, has  
indicated the willingness to at least review and comment on the  
class.  Optimally, the security directorate can be involved in a way  
similar to the involvement of the MIB doctors in creating the MIB class.

the current write-up is:
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/Tutorial_Security.txt

pervious presentations can be found at: http://edu.ietf.org/security

thanks
a.

---

From: "Susan R. Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 07:14:54 -0400 (EDT)

> http://www.ietf.org/meetings//Tutorial_MIB.txt

BTW this was *really* a good class, both for beginners like me and the 
MIB doctors, several of whom attended.  Bert's a good teacher.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:13:45 +0200

> MIB doctors, several of whom attended.  Bert's a good teacher.

But did he sing?

    Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:16:50 +0200

> class?  Or if there are those who want to volunteer to help.

This is good news.

Maybe it would be good to find someone who has recently experienced
this as a protagonist (for good or evil)? I'm sure Thomas will get
it right from the IESG's point of view, but it would be nice
to get input from a regular citizen or two. Maybe pick a recently
chartered WG and a recently rejected WG as case studies?

     Brian

---

From: "Susan R. Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 08:33:34 -0400 (EDT)

> But did he sing?

Disappointingly, no. Several of the MIB Doctor's did but we had to ask 
them to stop.