Subject: [edu-team] So...have we thought about what tutorials to do for the next IETF?

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:41:16 -0700

We need to do tools again, so that it can be recorded using the webex
instead of meetecho.

We always do newcomers.

I'd like to do a quite modified layer 2/3 thing to demystify all this
OpenFlow/Software Defined Networking/Network Virtualization stuff, in
addition to the traditional "why do we need both Ethernet and IP".

Should we repeat things that got recorded?  I'm sure some people would
prefer hearing them in person.   If we repeat them, should we record
them again?

Radia

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:20:33 -0400

> addition to the traditional "why do we need both Ethernet and IP".

I'd love to see that!

Margaret

---

From: Alice Russo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:34:21 -0400

Radia,

> We need to do tools again, so that it can be recorded using the webex

OK, I've checked with Henrik and he plans to attend IETF 85 and is willing to reprise his role in the Tools tutorial.  

> prefer hearing them in person.  

Yes. And different people come to different IETFs.

> If we repeat them, should we record them again?

I think a given tutorial could be recorded on a periodic basis, e.g., every year or two.

Thanks,
Alice

On Aug 20, 2012, at 1:41 PM, Radia Perlman wrote:

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

---

From: Scott O Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:12:13 -0400

I will be able to do the newcomers if wanted

Scott

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:55:48 +0200

Hi,

I agree that we should still offer tutorials that have been recorded. 
Too bad the meetecho recording didn't work out. Did they at least record 
Newcomers (I only saw the discussion about the Tools tutorial)? If not, 
maybe they can do that next time. We can send them Scott's slides in 
advance.

So, for IETF 85, we have Newcomers and Tools. What about NETCONF and 
YANG? Do we want to offer that again? And if we follow our 'rule' to 
provide the same tutorials two times in a row, we could also do security 
again (Radia?). And I remember vaguely that we discussed to do WG 
Leadership in Atlanta?

Mirjam

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:23:29 -0700

Really?  The meetecho recording didn't work out on all the tutorials?
I thought it just didn't work out for the tools tutorial because they
didn't use ppt, and instead did demos, so webex would have captured
it, but not meetecho, which assumes ppt slides and audio.

I could do security again, but if I'm only going to do one, I'd prefer
doing the modified layer 2/3 thing that puts "software defined
networking" in context.

I've always thought it would be great to have a tutorial about network
management that focuses on what it's like to manage a network.  What
kinds of things go wrong, what kinds of things does the manager want
to manage...and perhaps talks about the various tools, rather than
focusing on the syntax of a particulat tool.

or one about interdomain topology, policies, who gets to peer with
who, ... that sort of thing, rather than the syntax of BGP.

Do we have any idea of who could do either of those?

Radia

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree that we should still offer tutorials that have been recorded. Too
> bad the meetecho recording didn't work out. Did they at least record
> So, for IETF 85, we have Newcomers and Tools. What about NETCONF and YANG?
> Do we want to offer that again? And if we follow our 'rule' to provide the
> same tutorials two times in a row, we could also do security again (Radia?).
> And I remember vaguely that we discussed to do WG Leadership in Atlanta?
>
> Mirjam
>
>

---

From: Scott O Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:37:08 -0400

they did record the newcomers - I saw a bit of it - the angle of the camera was funky
(made me look even bigger than I am) - they doth the slides a few min before the session started 
because I gave them the ppt

Scott

On Aug 21, 2012, at 3:55 AM, Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I agree that we should still offer tutorials that have been recorded. Too bad the meetecho recording didn't work out. Did they at least record Newcomers (I only saw the discussion about the Tools tutorial)? If not, maybe they can do that next time. We can send them Scott's slides in advance.
> 
> So, for IETF 85, we have Newcomers and Tools. What about NETCONF and YANG? Do we want to offer that again? And if we follow our 'rule' to provide the same tutorials two times in a row, we could also do security again (Radia?). And I remember vaguely that we discussed to do WG Leadership in Atlanta?
> 
> Mirjam
>

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:55:33 +0200

Hi Scott,

I am glad the Newcomers got recorded. Radia, did they also record your 
tutorial (security)? Do you know what happened to the files? Or do I 
need to contact the meetecho guys? I guess we should put the recordings 
on the edu team pages.

Mirjam

On 21/8/12 8:37 PM, Scott O Bradner wrote:
> On Aug 21, 2012, at 3:55 AM, Mirjam Kuehne<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 07:48:40 -0700

It was recorded.  I haven't tried to find it.  My preference would
have been audio only, so if it winds up that it didn't come out well,
we can always try it again with webex.

Radia

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]> wrote:
> tutorial (security)? Do you know what happened to the files? Or do I need to
> contact the meetecho guys? I guess we should put the recordings on the edu
> team pages.
>
> Mirjam
>
>
>>> YANG? Do we want to offer that again? And if we follow our 'rule' to provide
>>> the same tutorials two times in a row, we could also do security again
>>> (Radia?). And I remember vaguely that we discussed to do WG Leadership in
>>> Atlanta?
>>>
>>> Mirjam
>>>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:40:33 +0100

On 20/08/2012 18:41, Radia Perlman wrote:
...
> addition to the traditional "why do we need both Ethernet and IP".

Yes, good topic. It's a new technology and it cuts across Areas and WGs,
exactly a case where a level-set is needed. My understanding is that the
IRTF session last time was about upper layer usage of SDN, or something
like that - maybe that needs to be considered too (at least the API that's
exposed to upper layers and to network management tools).

     Brian

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:17:17 +0200

Hi,

> exposed to upper layers and to network management tools).

Who would develop such a class? And do we have enough time before the 
next IETF meeting? Or shall we we stick with Security and Netconf for 
the next IETF and allow more time to develop a new tutorial (especially 
since we now agreed to get more review from the appropriate ADs).

Just in case, I'll ask Juergen Schoenwaelder if he is willing to do the 
Netconf tutorial again. Was anyone in his tutorial? Do we have any 
feedback for him?

Mirjam

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:09:09 -0700

I'd like to develop and teach this  There is no problem doing it in
time for the next IETF, and as a matter of fact, I just gave an
invited talk at Hot Interconnects that covered a subset of what I'd
have covered if I'd had more time (I only had 30 minutes at Hot
Interconnects).  I should give it a different name so people won't
think it's the same layer 2/3 thing that I did before.  Maybe
"Understanding Design Tradeoffs in Routing"

Radia

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Who would develop such a class? And do we have enough time before the next
> IETF meeting? Or shall we we stick with Security and Netconf for the next
> IETF and allow more time to develop a new tutorial (especially since we now
> agreed to get more review from the appropriate ADs).
>
> Netconf tutorial again. Was anyone in his tutorial? Do we have any feedback
> for him?
>
> Mirjam

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:53:01 -0400

So, let me play devil's advocate and push back a bit on the topic of
SDN...

First, the purpose of this group (EDU) is to do things that make the
IETF work better. That is, make the IETF WGs operate better, get their
work done better, etc.  The original purpose was never generic
technical tutorials, unless they were broadly applicable to helping
WGs get work done. In that vein, an EDU session on MIBs would be fine,
since so many WGs do MIBs, and many of those doing MIBs are not MIB
experts...

The DNS session also was designed to educate WGs about common things
they should and should not do with the DNS (and very much included
issues that the DNS folk had seen over and over again that they were
getting tired of).

Seems to me, SDN is much more broad a topic, and a new one, where it
is very unclear (too many) just what SDN is. Heck, we just had a
plenary talk on it. And we are about to form an IRTF WG. And I hear
the IETF SDN folk are aiming for a second BOF in November for their WG
attempt... And given that the first time around they weren't very
clear on just what SDN was and what an SDN WG would do, it doesn't
seem appropriate for EDU to weigh in on the topic.

I think it's premature to do an SDN session in EDU, and I think that
we should look more at topics of immediate significance/relvance to
the IETF as a whole.

Thomas

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:14:13 -0700

I wasn't talking about doing an SDN tutorial.  There already was a big
plenary devoted to that.  I'm instead talking about how various things
are orthogonal, together with pros/cons of different
approaches...where the forwarding table comes from (e.g., central
fabric manager as has been done in ATM or Infiniband) or distributed
routing algorith.  Whether the forwarding table is "complete" or
considered like a cache and filled in on-demand when a flow starts.
Whether the forwarding table is indexed by lable (e.g., ATM, MPLS), or
destination, or "flow". If the table is filled in as-needed, what
techniques are possible (e.g., query a fabric manager, flood). How a
network is managed, whether it's by having a central management
console through which a person inputs commands and it translates the
commands to the individual switches using SNMP, Netconf, YANG, or
Openflow, or having the person have to individually configure each
switch (and I doubt whether anyone does anything other than the
central network manager).

I doubt if I'd even mention the word "SDN".  Which, by the way, is
either only vaguely defined, or is definitively defined by lots of
people with lots of definitions. So absolutely...this is not an SDN
tutorial.

And I think it's important to have conceptual tutorials that introduce
how to think about and evaluate things rather than just things that
take a specific IETF protocol and go through the fields.

Radia

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 08:15:40 +0100

Hi Radia,

On 24/08/2012 20:14, Radia Perlman wrote:
...
> people with lots of definitions. So absolutely...this is not an SDN

Er, your initial message gave me a different impression.

> take a specific IETF protocol and go through the fields.

Well, our job is to help the IETF work better, so I think we
need to identify topics that are active in the IETF, have
cross-area and cross-WG impact, but are currently not widely
understood. I stand corrected, but I did think SDN was in that
category (not least because it doesn't have a single definition).

What would be the catchy title for your tutorial that would
bring people in? Would people outside the Routing Area be
interested?

    Brian

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 22:52:12 -0700

I was thinking about a title of "Understanding Design Tradeoffs in Routing".

>>Would people outside the Routing Area be
> interested?

I'd think the top purpose is for people outside the area to get an
overview of the field.  People in the area might find it interesting
as well, but it would be good if we could make sure that people know
that edu tutorials are a good chance to spend just 100 minutes of
their time, in a place with power and internet connectivity if they're
bored, to get an overview outside of the particular area that they've
been working in.  This is important for cross-fertilization, and for
letting people new to an area or new to IETF come up to speed.

And along those lines...there's another tutorial that I wish someone
would develop, which is on network management.

Let me explain from a naive point of view...

Each protocol has a "MIB" (which the tutorial would explain what it
is) that specifies which parameters are readable, which are writeable,
the range of acceptable values, and alerts.  So, naive questions:
a) why isn't this sufficient?  (i.e., why do we need to do things like
traceroute and ping, why multipathing complicates things, why even
though you might get a ping reply at one layer, it could be some other
layer at the endnode is broken, why if we have ping do we also have
BFD)
b) Why isn't SNMP sufficient?  Why is there Netconf and Yang and
Openflow?  Are these different from SNMP, or just an attempt to
redesign it to avoid, say, ASN.1?  (I have no idea of the answer to
this one...I'd intended on attending the tutorial, but my plane was
late...I should listen to the recording sometime).

So, I'd like to see tutorials that don't concentrate so much on
specific protocols, but conceptual overviews of the area...what are
the difficult problems, what kinds of things are controversial, what
are design tradeoffs, then perhaps mention specific protocols...which
ones are complementary, which ones are overlapping, which ones (e.g.,
OSPF vs RIP or IPv4 vs IPv6) are intended to replace others.

I think it would also be valuable to have a venue for deep dives into
specific protocols.  Perhaps because there are so many of these, and
this sort of tutorial would not have as broad appeal, written
tutorials on the spec that don't worry too much about syntax, but
explain design tradeoffs and perhaps some history of that protocol
might be a useful companion RFC to the protocol spec.

Radia

On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>> how to think about and evaluate things rather than just things thatWould people outside the Routing Area be
> interested?

> bring people in? >

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:22:12 +0200

Hi,

So, what do people think about Radia's offer to develop a tutorial 
called "Understanding Design Tradeoffs in Routing"?

In the meantime Juergen Schoenwaelder suggested to give the NETCONF and 
YANG tutorial not more than once a year (even though if necessary he 
would probably be available for IETF 85).

So, that means we would have the following for IETF 85:

13:00:  Newcomers (Scott)

13:00: Understanding Design Tradeoffs in Routing (Radia)

15:00 Tool (Alice and Henrik)

We need one more. Security would be good, but that would mean Radia 
would have to give two tutorials. Any suggestions? We need to let the 
secretariat know asap.

Cheers,
Mirjam

On 24/8/12 7:09 PM, Radia Perlman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Mirjam Kuehne<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:29:36 +0100

> letting people new to an area or new to IETF come up to speed.

100% OK with me. Go for it!

> would develop, which is on network management.

Yes. I was a bit disappointed that the OAM tutorial turned out to be
a different topic. I think there's a lot of emotion about "my
management protocol is better than yours" and it would be good
to get that boiled down to an objective overview.

The publication of http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6632 creates an
opportunity, I think.

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:32:37 +0100

> called "Understanding Design Tradeoffs in Routing"?

Do it!

> would have to give two tutorials. Any suggestions? We need to let the

Repeat OAM?

    Brian
>>> next
>>> feedback

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 07:51:24 -0400

>> would have to give two tutorials. Any suggestions? We need to let the

When was the last time we did training for new WG Chairs and/or WG Leadership?

I'd be willing to do an updated tutorial on that topic for Atlanta, if it's due.

Margaret

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:03:04 +0200

Hi Margaret,

You gave WG Leadership last time at IETF 80 in Prague and then at IETF 
81 in Quebec. So yes, I think it could be time for a refresher.

If there are no objections, I'll send the list of the four tutorials we 
identified to the secretariat.

Mirjam

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:49:22 +0100

This works for me.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:54:30 +0200

Hi,

Do these times work for everyone?

13:00 Newcomers Tutorial (Scott Bradner)

13:00 WG Leadership (Margaret Wasserman)

15:00 Tools Tutorial (Alice Russo/Henrik Levkowetz)

15:00 Understanding Design Tradeoffs in Routing (Radia Perlman)

Radia, can you please send me a short description for your new tutorial 
that we can pass on to the secretariat.

Now we only need a topic for the WG chairs lunch :-)

Cheers,
Mirjam

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:58:19 -0400

That works for me.

Margaret

On Aug 30, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:

> Radia, can you please send me a short description for your new tutorial that we can pass on to the secretariat.
>

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:15:50 -0700

Works for me, too.