Subject: Re: [edu-team] Tutorials

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 10:06:11 +0200

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your mail and your proposal. I am sorry if it was not clear 
that the OAM tutorial was going to take place. Tissa sent me the slides 
for review and when I passed them on to the edu-team, you must have 
dropped off the list. My apologies.

If we are planning to repeat the OAM tutorial at the next (or another 
future) IETF meeting, it would be great if you could then help to review 
and improve the material. The current slides are on the edu-team wiki: 
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/edu/wiki/IETF83

Regarding your proposal to teach NETCONF and YANG, do you have a 
suggestion who could develop such a tutorial? And would you like to be 
involved or even be one of the speakers?

Kind regards,
Mirjam

On 29/3/12 10:31 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> I have an observation and a proposal concerning the Sunday tutorials.
>
> The OAM tutorial at IETF-83 was not coordinated and revised by either
> the OPS or Routing ADs. To be complete, I provided some input in the
> earlier phases, but heard nothing in the months before the IETF, and
> actually did not realize the tutorial is taking place. As a result I
> could attend only the first 45 minutes or so, my impression was that the
> tutorial was not bad, but presented a perspective personal to the
> authors on a subject with many work-in-progress components that did not
> reach consensus.
>
> The proposal is not (directly) related. I suggest to pick NETCONF and
> YANG as the subjects of a Sunday tutorial at the coming IETF meeting. To
> differ from OAM, NETCONF and YANG are standard track protocol and DML
> respectively, they start to be deployed, yet seem to be little known out
> of the OPS area. Right now I am sitting in a SCIM BOF, the author of the
> introductory presentation rightly went through a series of slides 'why
> not LDAP?' 'why not ...' to justify a new protocol and modeling language
> for the problems, and a 'why not NETCONF/YANG?' slide was missing (as I
> think it would fit better than many other reviewed and rejected
> solutions he candidly answered that he does not know what NETCONF and
> YANG is. This must be fixed.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> edu-team mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-team

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:33:53 +0200

Mirjam,
> that the OAM tutorial was going to take place. Tissa sent me the 
> slides for review and when I passed them on to the edu-team, you must 
> have dropped off the list. My apologies.
>
> future) IETF meeting, it would be great if you could then help to 
> review and improve the material. The current slides are on the 
> edu-team wiki: http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/edu/wiki/IETF83
>
Juergen Schoenwalder accepted to develop and present the tutorial.

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:21:19 +0200

Thanks, Benoit. Is this him?

[email-masked]

Do you want to be involved in developing or reviewing the material?
Dan, do you want to be involved?

Kind Regards,
Mirjam

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:26:54 +0200

Mirjam,
> Thanks, Benoit. Is this him?
Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
> Do you want to be involved in developing or reviewing the material?
Reviewing, yes.
And I'm sure I can find some other experts who would be happy to review 
as well.
Do you need the names now?

Regards, Benoit.

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:48:12 +0200

Hi Mirjam, 

Juergen would be a fine speaker for this tutorial. 

I would be glad to be involved with reviewing. I also suggest to enroll
Andy Bierman ([email-masked]) and Martin Bjorklund
([email-masked]) for reviewing. 

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mirjam Kuehne [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 11:21 AM
> To: Benoit Claise
> Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); EDU Team
> Subject: Re: [edu-team] Tutorials
> 
> >>> authors on a subject with many work-in-progress components that
did
> not

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:27:34 +0200

Thanks for all the suggestions, Dan and Benoit.

I'll contact Juergen and will keep you in the loop.

Mirjam

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:53:10 +0200

Hi all,

I assume you all saw this suggestion and don't have any objections 
developing such a tutorial? If you do, please speak now :-)

Mirjam

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [edu-team] Tutorials
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:27:34 +0200
From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
To: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
CC: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <[email-masked]>,  EDU Team <[email-masked]>

Mirjam

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:54:44 +0100

Seems like a good move. Just make sure that they understand
the mission: tutorials that help people across the IETF to
understand and apply the technology *in their IETF work*.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:25:35 +0200

> review

[[DR]] I would be glad to do this. Please let me know in advance when
you decided to repeat the OAM tutorial. 

Regards,

Dan

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 08:37:31 -0700

In the past, we've done tutorials twice in a row, so that if there is
word of mouith from people that went to it, people that missed it can
attend.  Also, feedback on a tutorial is usually best done immediately
after it was given...otherwise, attendees' memories fade.

So if you have comments, it would be great to give them right away.

Thanks,

Radia

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:42:37 +0200

OK, allow me please for a few days, as I am back from a ten days
vacation and I need to deal with a few urgent matters before.

Regards,

Dan

> From: Radia Perlman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 6:38 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: Mirjam Kuehne; EDU Team; [email-masked]

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:37:36 -0400

All;

You might check the Paris Survey feedback:  
https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=0BBDpB1X9UOsH2iALH_2bpP0SswESpgyOWdiI8SMN4TJ0_3d

Ray

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:26:47 +0200

Radia,

Why not record the tutorials?

For example, I wanted to attend the three tutorials, but couldn't due to 
conflicting meetings.
Sure the slides are posted, but it doesn't help in some cases. Let me 
explain
- I attend the OAM tutorial. This one is mainly based on the slides, so 
the slides might be good enough.
- I wanted to attend the "Tools for Creating Internet-Drafts". The demo 
in there is the most interesting part... not in the slides obviously.
- I wanted to attend the "Newcomers Training", not the for slides, but 
for the experience shared by Scott Bradner.

Next to my own education, I basically want to solve two problems

1. I (and I guess all of us) am regularly asked for advices on how to 
approach the IETF, how to create a draft, etc...
I want a single pointer to a video. "Newcomers Training" and ""Tools for 
Creating Internet-Drafts" are the two best building blocks

2. What triggered this discussion about a potential YANG/NETCONF 
tutorial is a thought that Dan Romascanu and I had during the SCIM BOF.
Dan wrote about it:

    Right now I am sitting in a SCIM BOF, the author of the

While we can never blame someone who doesn't know, we should provide a 
pointer to the knowledge. And let's face it "read all the documents at 
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf/ and http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/" 
just doesn't work... while a two hours video would work, as a starting 
point.

My ideal envisioned solution would be a new tag under 
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/<your-working-group>/, called "tutorial".
This would be approved by EDU/IESG, to make sure that quality and vendor 
independence are present.
Proceeding this way, we don't even have to wait for physical meetings to 
record tutorials.

How to do this?
I do this on regular basis in my company, i.e. I record my meetings in 
webex and post a link in a WIKI. So perfectly possible with webex.
Disclaimer: pushing the webex solution is not my goal here, even if I'm 
Cisco. I just want to find a solution.
I discussed this with Alexa and Alice (who presented to the tools 
tutorial) at the last IETF.
Alexa's feedback was: there is apparently a drawback with webex that we 
need to be connected to the internet to be able to listen to a webex 
recording.
Actually, I was able to download a .arf document that contained video 
and voice over. So that works fine.

Three final thoughts
- Regarding "In the past, we've done tutorials twice in a row, so that 
if there is word of mouith from people that went to it, people that 
missed it can attend". If we proceed we proposed way, we could use the 
time for other tutorials
- As an OPS A.D., I would be more than happy to have tutorials for all 
my working groups.
- If the experiment is successful with tutorial, we could envision to do 
the same for the WG sessions, but one thing at the time for the moment...

Regards, Benoit.

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:43:57 +0200

We had a similar discussion in the IESG a few years ago, or maybe there
was more than one. We discussed proposals similar to the ones made now
by Benoit, and we also discussed about broadening the range of tutorials
in order to attract more participants to the IETF. After all the experts
or most of the experts in all the IETF protocols participate in the IETF
meetings, and many of them give tutorials at industry events, commercial
shows or academic symposia. The answer then was that the edu tutorials
should focus on the IETF process (which is fine and should be
permanently continued for the benefit of the newcomers) and on stable
well proofed technologies (this is why we had tutorials about routing
and not about MPLS at that point in time, so I was told). The inclusion
of the OAM tutorial seems to signal a change in policy, which I
personally salute and support, although I wonder if this should not have
been discussed with the IESG, especially as the specific OAM tutorial
included issues related to work-in-progress and open items in the WGs
which may be too far a step. If this is a case indeed I think that the
IESG and the edu team should discuss together and plan for the tutorials
a few meetings ahead, to make sure that all interesting and relevant
technologies from different areas are covered. 

Regards,

Dan

From: Benoit Claise [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 11:27 AM
To: Radia Perlman
Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); EDU Team; Mirjam Kuehne; [email-masked]; Alice
Hagens; Alexa Morris
Subject: Recording tutorials (was: Re: [edu-team] Tutorials )

Radia,

How to do this?

Three final thoughts
the same for the WG sessions, but one thing at the time for the
moment...

Regards, Benoit.

 
Thanks,
 
Radia
 
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
<[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>  wrote:

		-----Original Message-----

		If we are planning to repeat the OAM tutorial at the
next (or another
		future) IETF meeting, it would be great if you could
then help to
		review
		and improve the material. The current slides are on the
edu-team wiki:
		http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/edu/wiki/IETF83

	[[DR]] I would be glad to do this. Please let me know in advance
when
	you decided to repeat the OAM tutorial.
	 
	Regards,
	 
	Dan

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:43:00 +0100

I have an old-fshioned view on the desirable scope of the tutorials.
They should be aimed specifically at IETF participants, and in
particular at helping them to participate more effectively. That
certainly does not exclude technical tutorials; I thought OAM
was a good topic precisely because it's an area that every WG
designing protocols should be aware of while evaluating proposals.

These are free tutorials that are a full part of the IETF week,
and (as was definitely discussed previously) it isn't the IETF's
role to offer general-purpose technology tutorials (which typically
cost $$$ per day).

Recording them is a good idea in principle; but it requires
a support system that may not be fully available on Sunday.
That's going to end up as an IAOC issue.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 2012-04-16 09:43, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:03:18 -0700

Short answer:  I agree with Benoit.

I agree that it would be good to have tutorial material available "on
demand" rather than just during a meeting.

It is almost impossible to follow even a single substantive WG (as in,
lively mailing list, many many drafts) with a day job, and definitely
gets to be impossible to understand many different WGs.  Each WG comes
up with its own jargon, a lot of what people post on mailing lists is
based on confusion over other people's incoherent posts. I try very
hard, on WGs I care about, to summarize email threads occasionally,
and the amount of work it takes to understand a long thread on a topic
I am an expert in, in my native language, is enormous.  I usually
cannot do it without actually picking up the phone and talking to some
of the people posting on the thread.

Imagine non-native English speakers, or someone trying to understand a
new area?  You can hardly fault someone for not realizing that
something similar is being done in a different group.  So  your
example of "Why not use X, or Y, or Z" is an excellent example that
happens all the time.  Very few people understand all three of X, Y
and Z, or could possibly even realize there are 6 more things missing
from the {X,Y,Z} set.

One point of view is that if you care about a WG you should have read
all the drafts and followed the mailing list, and there's no reason
for anyone to spoon-feed you, and we shouldn't waste WG time or IETF
resources helping people come up to speed.

I tend to believe that taking the time to give an overview of the
problem, perhaps alternatives that were discussed, and reasoning for
the direction, and how it fits with other things, is valuable not only
for the consumers of such information, but for the people who have to
think the stuff through and organize it. And I believe that the
cross-fertilization that would be facilitated would make everything
better.

An example...I'd been asked to be the security advisor for a
particular WG (won't mention the name).  They had a zillion
incomprehensible drafts.  I started with one incomprehensible draft.
Started asking the authors questions, and even they didn't know the
basic things that could perhaps have helped me understand the draft.
They didn't remember anymore, or it was one of the coauthors that
perhaps might be better able to answer (and when I tracked them down,
was redirected into a loop back to people I'd already talked to).  And
these were very basic questions.  I gave up.  (and I was not the first
security advisor for that group that gave up for the same reason).

We all realize the need for fresh eyes to look at things, especially
fresh eyes with different skills.  It's not fair to make the fresh
eyes have to do that much work to try to be helpful.

So, I do see the need for easy ways to come up to speed on individual
protocols, or entire WGs (what problems are you working on, how do all
the drafts fit together, what synergies do you have with other WGs),
or entire areas, etc.  The RFCs are about being complete and
describing every bit and byte, which is necessary in order to
implement it, but is not a good thing to read in order to quickly come
up to speed on something.

One of the strengths of the IETF is that information is free.  Other
bodies get funded through charging for documents. So, how can IETF
best provide "information" and not just "data", if you know what I
mean.

It's a hobby and passion of mine to help people learn, and to explore
different media.  Books, white papers, college courses, short
presentations, etc.

Now back to the suggestion of videoing tutorials.  I don't see why it
needs to be video'd.  It would seem like audio plus slides might be
all that's necessary, and might be a lot cheaper.  Or there might be a
way of presenting the material in written form that could be just as
good or better.

The advantage of written form is that it's easier to look things up
(e.g., the tools tutorial -- I wouldn't want to have to fast forward
through a long thing in order to see a demo of the one thing I wanted
to figure out at that time). A disadvantage of recording things is
that anyone that speaks (presenter, someone asking questions), might
be embarrassed that something said off the cuff is preserved forever.
So, again, thinking about how I'd want to learn tools...I don't think
I'd want a 2 hour thing to review.  I think I'd want a quick overview
of what all the tools are, and then click on a link for a single tool
for an overview of that tool, then clicking on things for more
advanced features.

I also think that WG chairs (or someone they appoint) should be
responsible for summarizing long complicated email threads
occasionally.  In a way that makes everyone feel their points have
been captured.

Just brainstorming here..

Radia

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:
> - I attend the OAM tutorial. This one is mainly based on the slides, so the
> slides might be good enough.
> - I wanted to attend the "Tools for Creating Internet-Drafts". The demo in
> there is the most interesting part... not in the slides obviously.
> - I wanted to attend the "Newcomers Training", not the for slides, but for
> the experience shared by Scott Bradner.
>
> 2. What triggered this discussion about a potential YANG/NETCONF tutorial is
> a thought that Dan Romascanu and I had during the SCIM BOF.
> Dan wrote about it:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf/ and http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/" just
> doesn't work... while a two hours video would work, as a starting point.
>
> I do this on regular basis in my company, i.e. I record my meetings in webex
> and post a link in a WIKI. So perfectly possible with webex.
> I discussed this with Alexa and Alice (who presented to the tools tutorial)
> at the last IETF.
> Alexa's feedback was: there is apparently a drawback with webex that we need
> to be connected to the internet to be able to listen to a webex recording.
> Actually, I was able to download a .arf document that contained video and
> voice over. So that works fine.
>
> Three final thoughts
> - Regarding "In the past, we've done tutorials twice in a row, so that if
> there is word of mouith from people that went to it, people that missed it
> can attend". If we proceed we proposed way, we could use the time for other
> tutorials
> - As an OPS A.D., I would be more than happy to have tutorials for all my
> working groups.
> - If the experiment is successful with tutorial, we could envision to do the
> same for the WG sessions, but one thing at the time for the moment...
>
> Regards, Benoit.
>

---

From: Scott O Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:28:29 -0400

mine has been recorded at least twice over the years - but I do not know what happened to the recordings

Scott

On Apr 16, 2012, at 4:26 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:

> For example, I wanted to attend the three tutorials, but couldn't due to conflicting meetings.
> Sure the slides are posted, but it doesn't help in some cases. Let me explain
> - I attend the OAM tutorial. This one is mainly based on the slides, so the slides might be good enough.
> - I wanted to attend the "Tools for Creating Internet-Drafts". The demo in there is the most interesting part... not in the slides obviously.
> - I wanted to attend the "Newcomers Training", not the for slides, but for the experience shared by Scott Bradner.
> 
> 1. I (and I guess all of us) am regularly asked for advices on how to approach the IETF, how to create a draft, etc...
> I want a single pointer to a video. "Newcomers Training" and ""Tools for Creating Internet-Drafts" are the two best building blocks
> 
> 2. What triggered this discussion about a potential YANG/NETCONF tutorial is a thought that Dan Romascanu and I had during the SCIM BOF. 
> Dan wrote about it:
> While we can never blame someone who doesn't know, we should provide a pointer to the knowledge. And let's face it "read all the documents at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf/ and http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/" just doesn't work... while a two hours video would work, as a starting point.    
> 
> My ideal envisioned solution would be a new tag under http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/<your-working-group>/, called "tutorial".
> This would be approved by EDU/IESG, to make sure that quality and vendor independence are present.
> Proceeding this way, we don't even have to wait for physical meetings to record tutorials. 
> 
> How to do this?
> I do this on regular basis in my company, i.e. I record my meetings in webex and post a link in a WIKI. So perfectly possible with webex. 
> Disclaimer: pushing the webex solution is not my goal here, even if I'm Cisco. I just want to find a solution.
> I discussed this with Alexa and Alice (who presented to the tools tutorial) at the last IETF. 
> Alexa's feedback was: there is apparently a drawback with webex that we need to be connected to the internet to be able to listen to a webex recording.
> Actually, I was able to download a .arf document that contained video and voice over. So that works fine.
> 
> Three final thoughts
> - Regarding "In the past, we've done tutorials twice in a row, so that if there is word of mouith from people that went to it, people that missed it can attend". If we proceed we proposed way, we could use the time for other tutorials
> - As an OPS A.D., I would be more than happy to have tutorials for all my working groups.
> - If the experiment is successful with tutorial, we could envision to do the same for the WG sessions, but one thing at the time for the moment...
> 
> Regards, Benoit.
>>>> From: Mirjam Kuehne [
>>>> mailto:[email-masked]
>>>> ]

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:40:18 +0200

Hi Radia,

Well said.

Note: what I mean by "video" in this context is simply the recording of 
the presented slides/demo/whatever is "shared" by the PC, and not a 
video camera filming someone presenting on stage.
Regarding video versus (ppt + slides), I favor the video for 2 reasons:
1. When a demo is organized. We all know that a demo helps a lot in a 
tutorial.
Example: we had a demo for YANG at Ithe ETF75. Without the video, it's 
simply lost for the people who didn't attend.
Example: the demo Alice did some demos during her tools tutorials in 
Paris. Lost again.
2. With a video, the presenter doesn't have to tell on which slide he 
is. He can even point things on the screen, or even write.

In terms of what is required in terms of logistic, I simply use a PC 
with a software phone on which webex can call me back, a blue tooth 
headset, and that's it. Everything is recorded. And I make sure that I 
repeat every questions/comments from the audience, if the audience is 
not part of the call.

Ok, what is the next step?
A discussion at the next IESG telechat, or does the EDU organizes 
something else?

Regards, Benoit.
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Benoit Claise<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>> Radia,
>>

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:24:32 +0200

Dear EDU-team,

We discussed this issue during the 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/InformalAgenda.
It went very smoothly.
As advised by Russ, the next step is to contact you guys: so basically, 
how do we move forward?

Would it make sense to run a little experiment?
For example, to re-run one of the techtorials from Paris with webex 
recording on.

Please let us know.

Regards, Benoit.

>
> Well said.
>
> Note: what I mean by "video" in this context is simply the recording 
> of the presented slides/demo/whatever is "shared" by the PC, and not a 
>>> tutorial is

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:38:48 +0200

Hi Benoit,

Thanks for the follow-up and for the offer to set this up. And I didn't 
see any objections on the edu-team list. We are currently discussing the 
tutorials for the next IETF. We will let you know which tutorial we 
think would be the most appropriate one for this experiment.

Kind regards,
Mirjam

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:50:31 +0200

Hi Mirjam,

Thanks.
And what about re-running one of the techtorials from Paris with webex 
recording on, in order to get some feedback?

Regards, Benoit.
> Hi Benoit,
>
> Thanks for the follow-up and for the offer to set this up. And I 
> didn't see any objections on the edu-team list. We are currently 
> discussing the tutorials for the next IETF. We will let you know which 
> tutorial we think would be the most appropriate one for this experiment.
>
> Kind regards,
> Mirjam
>

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:16:22 +0200

Hi Benoit,

Yes, that is definitely a possibility. In most cases we offer the same 
tutorial two times in a row. So, we are thinking about providing the OAM 
tutorial again at the next IETF. But we need to confirm with the 
speakers first.

Kind regards,
Mirjam

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:24:59 +0200

Hi Mirjam,

I now realized that I didn't express myself clearly.
I was actually thinking to re-running one of the techtorials before the 
meeting in Paris, over the phone, as an experiment.

Regards, Benoit.
> tutorial two times in a row. So, we are thinking about providing the 
> OAM tutorial again at the next IETF. But we need to confirm with the 
> speakers first.
>
> Kind regards,
> Mirjam
>
>>>>>>> - I attend the OAM tutorial. This one is mainly based on the 
>>>>>>> slides,
>>>>>>> so the
>>>>>>> I want a single pointer to a video. "Newcomers Training" and 
>>>>>>> ""Tools
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> Alexa's feedback was: there is apparently a drawback with webex 
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> we need

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:29:35 +0200

Hi Benoit,

I am sorry I still don't understand. Do you mean re-running and 
recording one of the tutorials before the IETF in Vancouver?

Mirjam