Subject: [edu-team] list of tutorials and WG chair topics

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 03:26:26 +0100

Hi team,

For your information, I am attaching a spreadsheet showing all the 
tutorials and recent WG chair topics.

Can some of these tutorials be retired? Or revived? Merged?
Which ones do we want to provide in London? I'll talk to Benoit about 
the AAA tutorial.

Mirjam

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 19:11:33 +1300

I have to say that given the reactions I saw to the RAI overview,
and the fact that we have 7 technical areas, it seems to me a no
brainer that we should book a slot for a new area overview at the
next 6 IETFs. Whether it becomes a permanent feature can be decided
two years from now. We will need Jari's support in convincing the ADs
to find volunteers in each area.

I definitely support Measurement and AAA for London if we can get solid
commitments. And I wonder about a variant of WG Leadership, along the
lines of "What you should expect from WG Chairs" as we discussed.
Or maybe that is for IETF 90?

Will the Privacy topic become a tutorial for IETF 90?

Could you add a column for IETF 90, so that we start thinking two-ahead?
For example, Tools for creating IDs & RFCs might come up then.
(And when will "New RFC Format" become a hot issue?)

Regards
   Brian

On 05/11/2013 15:26, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> edu-team mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-team

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 02:31:35 +0100

Hi Brian,

> to find volunteers in each area.

Yes, would be great if other areas would start developing such 
tutorials. Let's see what Jari says.

> I definitely support Measurement and AAA for London if we can get solid

I'll put the AAA Tutorial on the list. I am not so sure yet about the 
Measurements tutorial. That might need some more preparation and also 
involvement from others (e.g. folks from LMAP and IPPM). Maybe we can 
plan this for sometime later in 2014.

> Or maybe that is for IETF 90?

If we want to review the current WG Leadership tutorial and add some of 
the things we discussed, IETF 90 might be more realistic. Who wants to 
work on that?

> Will the Privacy topic become a tutorial for IETF 90?

Yes, that is the idea. Or possibly even for IETF 89. There is only one 
problem: Both Alissa and Hannes have to attend IAB meetings n Sunday and 
cannot teach a tutorial at our regular slots. So, we'll either have to 
find another time slot (which might not be ideal) or other speakers 
(Alissa said that might actually be possible). I'll speak to her again 
after the WG Chairs lunch.

> Could you add a column for IETF 90, so that we start thinking two-ahead?

OK, I'll do that.

> For example, Tools for creating IDs & RFCs might come up then.

Alice, do you think we should provide that at IETF 90?

Mirjam

---

From: Alice Russo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:40:07 -0800

> Alice, do you think we should provide that at IETF 90?

Yes; perhaps it could be a combination of Tools overview (first half) and Intro to xml2rfc (second half).

For the future, how about the "DNSSEC for programmers" tutorial from IETF 76 (Peter Koch / Olafur Gudmundsson)?  Although it seems it needs to be renamed (see survey comments below), it generated a fair amount of comments at the time, and it's a topic that has recurred in requests.

From http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/76-Hiroshima-2009.pdf:

The DNS session was actually not for programmers but for protocol designers.
Another session *really* for programmers would be nice, IMHO -- although this
one covered a lot of useful topics already

The title of the class was misunderstanding. Please choose a real name and
provide a brief description

Deal more with DNSSEC and PMTU issues

The DNS for programmers tutorial needs to be renamed. It wasn't a
programmer's view, but a protocol designer's view.

The DNS for Programmers Tutorial should be a recurring feature

I expected DNS for programmers, not generic DNS stuff...

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 11:04:10 +1300

"DNSSEC for Protocol Designers" certainly makes sense as a topic.
I've seen a lot of work in the IETF that is incorporating DNSSEC
in the last couple of years. However, we'd have to ask DNSSEC people
if this is still relevant, given the state of DNSSEC deployment.

    Brian

---

From: Alice Russo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 12:46:36 -0500

> if this is still relevant, given the state of DNSSEC deployment.

I agree. Perhaps it's time to check if it's relevant for IETF 90?

(I mistakenly thought it was last given at IETF 76, but it was last at IETF 80 -- slides can be found from here http://www.ietf.org/edu/technical-tutorials.html#dns)

Thanks,
Alice

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:06:51 -0800

The title "for protocol designers" sounds like it might be a bit too much
going over APIs and other details.  DNSSEC is fascinating in terms of
concepts...partially signed zones, proving there is no entry, etc.  And
philosophical stuff like whether it could be used as a PKI.  So if we do a
DNSSEC tutorial, I'd like it to be more than just "for protocol designers".
 I could talk to the developers about it, and perhaps shouldn't read too
much into the title.

Radia

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Alice Russo <[email-masked]> wrote:

> (I mistakenly thought it was last given at IETF 76, but it was last at
> IETF 80 -- slides can be found from here
> http://www.ietf.org/edu/technical-tutorials.html#dns)
>
> Thanks,
> Alice
>
> >
> >    Brian
> >
> >> For the future, how about the "DNSSEC for programmers" tutorial from
> IETF 76 (Peter Koch / Olafur Gudmundsson)?  Although it seems it needs to
> be renamed (see survey comments below), it generated a fair amount of
> comments at the time, and it's a topic that has recurred in requests.
> >>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 08:13:57 +1300

Radia,

I thought that what we did in the IETF was design protocols? Yet a lot
of IETF people don't understand DNSSEC, which changes assumptions
about DNS that have been valid since ~1983.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:25:19 -0800

We don't just need to understand bits and bytes of protocols.  Possible
implications of difficulties in signing zones, administering a DNS server,
what DNSSEC can and can't do...

These are things that should be in the tutorial...not just the bits and
bytes of the protocols.  You can't just "design protocols" without
understanding the problem space.

Again...I might be reading too much into the title.

Radia

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:57:26 +0100

Hi,

Yes, I think you may be reading too much into the title :)
A "DNSSEC for Protocol Designers" tutorial doesn't necessarily have to 
go into all the bit and bytes. However, when reading the comments it 
sounds like this is actually what people had expected.

Shall we ask Peter and Olafur if a DNSSEC tutorial would make sense and 
if they would like to prepare one?

Regards,
Mirjam

On 19/11/13 8:25 PM, Radia Perlman wrote:
> implications of difficulties in signing zones, administering a DNS
> server, what DNSSEC can and can't do...
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Radia,
>
>      > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Alice Russo <[email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>      >
>      >>>> Yes; perhaps it could be a combination of Tools overview
>     (first half)
>      >> and Intro to xml2rfc (second half).
>      >>>> The title of the class was misunderstanding. Please choose a
>     real name
>      >> and
>      >>>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>      >> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>