Subject: [edu-team] Fwd: 81st IETF Tutorials

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:13:16 -0400

So, what tutorials do we want to do this time?

I was thinking I might update the WG Leadership tutorial again, based  
on experience last time, and do it again.

What other tutorials were done last time that should be repeated?

What about asking Thomas Narten to do "Bringing New Work" again?

Margaret

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Wanda Lo <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 12, 2011 8:03:43 PM EDT
> To: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>, Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked] 
> >
> Cc: Beaulieu Marcia <[email-masked]>
> Subject: 81st IETF Tutorials
>
> Hello Ladies,
>
> We are planning to open registration for IETF 81 - Quebec on the  
> 26th of April and would like to get all the tutorials' information  
> ready.  Please send as soon as you can so we can include it in the  
> registration system.  If you have any questions, please let me know.
>
>
> Thanks so much!
> Wanda
>
>
>
>
>
> ===========================
> Wanda Lo
> Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
> 48377 Fremont Blvd., Ste. 117
> Fremont, California 94538 / USA
> +1-510-492-4082
> +1-510-492-4001 (fax)
> www.ietf.org
>
> --
> Managed by Association Management Solutions (AMS)
> Forum Management, Meeting and Event Planning
> www.amsl.com
>
>
>
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:28:49 +1200

> What about asking Thomas Narten to do "Bringing New Work" again? 

Good idea. All the chit-chat about Bar BOFs suggests that this
is needed.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 2011-04-13 12:13, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> I was thinking I might update the WG Leadership tutorial again, based on
> experience last time, and do it again.
> 
>> To: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>, Margaret Wasserman
>> <[email-masked]>
>> We are planning to open registration for IETF 81 - Quebec on the 26th
>> of April and would like to get all the tutorials' information ready. 
>> Please send as soon as you can so we can include it in the
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> edu-team mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-team

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:46:56 +0200

Hi,

So, we have the following so far:

Newcomers (Scott?)

WG Leadership (Margaret)

Bringing new work to the IETF (Thomas Narten)
- Thomas, would you be willing to do this in Quebec?

Then we need at least one more: Maybe one on MPLS as suggested by Radia? 
Who could we ask to tech this?

Or do we want to offer 'Intro to xml2rfc' once more? Alice?

Mirjam

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>> *From: *Wanda Lo <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>> *Date: *April 12, 2011 8:03:43 PM EDT
>> *To: *Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>, Margaret 
>> Wasserman <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>> *Cc: *Beaulieu Marcia <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>> *Subject: **81st IETF Tutorials*
>>
>> Hello Ladies,
>>
>> _www.ietf.org <http://www.ietf.org/>_
>>  
>> /--///
>> www.amsl.com <http://www.amsl.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
>

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:43:43 -0700

Does the "intro to xml2rfc" also talk about the nroff tool for
creating internet drafts?  I thought the slides implied that, in which
case it might be better to give it a different title, like "tools for
creating internet drafts and rfcs".

Radia

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Then we need at least one more: Maybe one on MPLS as suggested by Radia? Who
> could we ask to tech this?
>
>>> We are planning to open registration for IETF 81 - Quebec on the 26th of
>>> April and would like to get all the tutorials' information ready.  Please
>>> send as soon as you can so we can include it in the registration system.  If
>>> you have any questions, please let me know.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks so much!
>>> Wanda
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 48377 Fremont Blvd., Ste. 117 Fremont, California 94538 / USA
>>> +1-510-492-4082 +1-510-492-4001 (fax) _www.ietf.org <http://www.ietf.org/>_
>>>  /--///

---

From: Alice Hagens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:04:30 -0400

At IETF 80, "Tools for Creating Internet-Drafts" was given; it covered NroffEdit and xml2rfc. Slides are here: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-editor/tools_80.pdf

At IETF 73 and 75, a tutorial was given that covered xml2rfc only; it was "Intro to xml2rfc". Slides are here:  http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-editor/intro_xml2rfc_75.pdf
(Also, at a past IETF, Henrik gave a tutorial about IETF Tools in general.)

For IETF 81, I'd vote "Document Lifecycle" if we want to change it up, or "Tools for Creating Internet-Drafts" if we want to repeat Prague. (I would agree that "Tools for Creating Internet-Drafts" is more helpful than "Intro to xml2rfc".)

Thanks,
Alice

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:05:53 -0400 (EDT)

I can do the newbee (again) if wanted

Scott

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:10:01 -0400

> Good idea. All the chit-chat about Bar BOFs suggests that this

This would be excellent and timely.

Russ

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:21:03 -0400

So, given the discussion in Prague about  making the IETF work better,
I wonder if we should step back a bit, look at what we are doing and
ask if there are things we could do differently or better.

I wonder of the EDU effort is sort of coasting at this point, mainly
doing presentations we have done before.

Our charter (http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/edu/wiki/EduCharter)
says:

> The Education (EDU) Team manages the internal educational activities
> of the IETF with the goal of improving the effectiveness of IETF
> operations. We strive to improve the effectiveness of IETF leaders and
> participants by offering training sessions and educational materials
> that clarify their roles and responsibilities and prepare them to be
> more effective in their roles.

Then it lists "current activities", but the date on that list is 2006!!!

Thomas

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:45:02 +0200

Excellent. Thank you, Scott.

Mirjam

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 03:20:48 +1200

I think that would be timely. Of course, we have to pick the
topics for Quebec City rapidly, but it's a while since we
reviewed things as a whole. In particular, it's easy enough
to whistle up technical tutorials - we have lots of people
willing and able - and harder to plan and present specific,
non-handwaving tutorials about roles, responsibilities and
procedures. "Bringing new work" is clearly part of that.

So we need two separate discussions: what to teach in Quebec,
and what is the strategy for the next couple of years?

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:56:00 -0400

Interesting that you should mention this, as I was recently thinking  
the same thing...

In the past, when we were looking for new direction and/or trying to  
figure out what was working and what wasn't, we've held an open  
meeting during a meeting slot at the IETF to get input from the  
community, discuss new ideas and find new interested folks to work with.

Do you think we should do that again?

Margaret

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:59:38 +1200

On 2011-04-15 07:56, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 
> Interesting that you should mention this, as I was recently thinking the
> same thing...
> 
> figure out what was working and what wasn't, we've held an open meeting
> during a meeting slot at the IETF to get input from the community,
> discuss new ideas and find new interested folks to work with.
> 

It certainly can do no harm, but maybe the first step should be to
write a quick draft summarising the pattern of tutorials over the
last few years and repeating the EDU team objectives from our
charter. Then we could ask for input in advance of the open meeting.

   Brian

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:24:37 -0400

Maybe we could also consider a conference call (or two) amongst  
ourselves to discuss what we've been doing, what works and what  
doesn't, and how we think we could improve?

The meetings at IETF meetings haven't been freeform.  They have  
involved us (the EDU Team)  presenting a plan (which I suppose we  
could do in an Internet-Draft -- that might be good, actually),  
getting feedback on the plan, and adjusting it in real-time based on  
feedback in the room.

Margaret

On Apr 15, 2011, at 3:59 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>> meeting

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:44:27 -0700

I suspect there are a lot of people who would never speak up in a
room.  Perhaps we can invite people to send suggestions about
tutorials they'd like to see, and feedback on tutorials they have seen
(ranging from "great, wouldn't change a thing", to "I wish they'd also
covered XX", to "I don't think it was that useful").

Radia

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Margaret Wasserman
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Maybe we could also consider a conference call (or two) amongst ourselves to
> discuss what we've been doing, what works and what doesn't, and how we think
> we could improve?
>
> The meetings at IETF meetings haven't been freeform.  They have involved us
> (the EDU Team)  presenting a plan (which I suppose we could do in an
> Internet-Draft -- that might be good, actually), getting feedback on the
> plan, and adjusting it in real-time based on feedback in the room.
>
> Margaret
>

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:55:44 -0400

On Apr 15, 2011, at 12:44 PM, Radia Perlman wrote:
> room.

When we've held these meetings in the past, quite a few people did  
speak up.  We got good feedback and a number of productive  
suggestions.  At least at one point in the past, we were planning to  
have open meetings once every two years or so...

> Perhaps we can invite people to send suggestions about

Why not do both?

Margaret

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 06:47:52 +0200

Hi,

I have not been active in years, but do read this list.  I think having a meeting in Ottawa, and the idea of a draft for discussion is a good one.

I even hope I have the funding to make it to Ottawa.

a.

On 14 Apr 2011, at 21:56, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> 
> Interesting that you should mention this, as I was recently thinking the same thing...
> 
> In the past, when we were looking for new direction and/or trying to figure out what was working and what wasn't, we've held an open meeting during a meeting slot at the IETF to get input from the community, discuss new ideas and find new interested folks to work with.
>

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:40:09 +0200

Hi all,

Looks like most people like the idea to organise an edu-team meeting in 
Quebec or another way to gather more community feedback.

For now, we need to decide pretty quickly which tutorials we want to 
offer at IETF 81, because the secretariat wants to open registration 
today! So far I've seen the following suggestions:

1. Newcomers (Scott, confirmed)

2. WG Leadership (Margaret, confirmed)

3. Tools for Creating Internet-Drafts (Alice, confirmed)

4. Bringing new work to the IETF (Thomas?)

5. MPLS (Radia?)

If Thomas agrees to do 'Bringing New Work into the IETF', we have four 
process-oriented tutorials, but having listened to the discussion at the 
plenary in Prague, maybe that's what's needed?

Regards,
Mirjam

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:43:53 -0700

Although I was suggesting MPLS might be a good topic because it seems
to be mystifyingly complex, I wasn't volunteering to do that one. I'm
always ready and happy to do a more general overview of layers 2 and 3
(including MPLS and routing protocols), or one on security, but I
wouldn't want to do one focused just on MPLS.  If we really wanted
someone to do that, perhaps we could send email to the MPLS working
group asking for a volunteer.

I'm also happy to work with someone who is preparing a new tutorial,
to help them make it comprehensible, and to ask them a bunch of
questions that I think someone would want to learn from such a thing,
to make sure that content was included.

I wish I hadn't lost the piece of paper on which I jotted down the
name of the person enthusiastic about doing a wireless tutorial.

Radia

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]> wrote:
> For now, we need to decide pretty quickly which tutorials we want to offer
> at IETF 81, because the secretariat wants to open registration today! So far
> I've seen the following suggestions:
>
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:11:09 +1200

1-4 look fine to me, and given our primary mission is to make the
IETF work better, I see no failure if there is no technical
tutorial this time.

I'd say - even if Thomas can't confirm, 'Bringing new work'
should be listed. Somebody will be able to teach it!
(Unfortunately I can't volunteer, as I know I will not be
in QC).

   Brian

On 2011-04-26 19:40, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
>> Then we need at least one more: Maybe one on MPLS as suggested by
>> Radia? Who could we ask to tech this?
>>

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:12:01 +0200

Thanks, Brian. If there are no objections, I will pass 1 - 4 on to the 
secretariat, so they can include the tutorials when they open registrations.

Mirjam

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:33:56 +0200

Hi Radia,

Thanks for clarifying. I understood that you didn't actually wanted to 
give that tutorial, I just included you as a contact person.

We have now submitted the other four tutorials for the secretariat for 
IETF 81. That will hopefully give us some time to put together a 
tutorial on MPLS for IETF 82.

And thank you for offering to help with that. Would you like to send 
mail to the MPLS WG list? Maybe others on the Edu team have a 
suggestion? Unfortunately I don't really know anyone in that area.

Mirjam

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 08:58:53 -0700

OK.  Given that there is no hurry for this, I can try sending email to
various lists seeing if I can find volunteers. But I'm a bit concerned
about a couple of things
a) most speakers are really not good, and don't understand how to do
an overview for people who have not been in their area, so I prefer
when I get a "good feeling" about someone when I chat with them, ask
them a few questions, and they understand the question and give me a
coherent answer.  If someone volunteers and then we realize they are
incomprehensible, not sure how to gracefully back out
b) there's been a thread on the WG chairs list about making good use
of WG time that has several people expressing the opinion (which I
strongly disagree with) that there should not be any time spent
explaining stuff...that everything should be done in internet drafts
and on the list, and everyone who cares should have read the
documents.  I believe that it's good to have "tourists" getting a
flavor of what an area is about, for lots of reasons.  Perhaps
tutorial overviews are less controversial in the Sunday afternoon
slot?  But if a message asking for volunteers for a tutorial is on a
typical IETF mailing list, I'm sure that at least one person on the
list will make a Big Deal of it.

So maybe it would be better to just use informal contacts.  I do know
some people in various areas and I can just send them private email
asking for recommendations.  So if people have some favorite technical
areas they'd like for us to find people for, let me know.  I should
try to hunt down the wireless person.  I think that would be much more
interesting than MPLS, which I'm worried there really isn't more to
say than the 10 minutes I cover of it, in my layer 2-3 presentation,
other than gruesome details that are irrelevant for an overview.

Radia

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi Radia,
>
> Thanks for clarifying. I understood that you didn't actually wanted to give
> that tutorial, I just included you as a contact person.
>
> We have now submitted the other four tutorials for the secretariat for IETF
> 81. That will hopefully give us some time to put together a tutorial on MPLS
> for IETF 82.
>
> And thank you for offering to help with that. Would you like to send mail to
> the MPLS WG list? Maybe others on the Edu team have a suggestion?
> Unfortunately I don't really know anyone in that area.
>
> Mirjam
>
>
> Radia Perlman wrote:
>>
>>> offer
>>>>>> of