Subject: [edu-team] Would you guys like to help organize a "technical overview of IETF work" tutorial for edu?

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:21:41 -0800

I know you guys are probably too busy to actually give a lecture in the
Sunday afternoon edu  series, but it would be valuable if you could either
personally help develop content (perhaps just a single phone call with the
person who will be presenting, and be available for email questions as they
are preparing), or suggest people in your area that would be good at either
presenting or helping develop content?

The edu team would like to develop tutorial material which is a technical
overview of all the IETF WGs...without acronyms! So that someone who isn't
in the area can appreciate what kinds of things are going on in other
areas.... the interesting technical challenges....the controversies...the
successes...the failures...the reasons for such failures....  From a
conceptual level...not for the purpose of going through packet formats.

So, for example, thinking of network management...rather than looking at
various protocols such as SNMP or NETCONF, talk about the vision of how to
manage a network...a NOC, a management station from which the network is
managed, a language for  talking between the management station and the
nodes, a MIB for exposing things that should be readable, writeable, cause
alerts.  What kinds of things would one want to monitor/set in a network
from a management station?  Why are there multiple languages for talking to
things (SNMP, NETCONF, OPENFLOW).  Are they competitors or do we need them
all because they do different things?

Given that the slot is only 2 hours long, we unfortunately probably can't
cover all of IETF in one slot.  So we might shoot for three different areas
covered per IETF.  In some cases (e.g., already there have been tutorials
on security, and on routing) there could be tutorials that fill the whole
slot with one area. But I think an "Overview of areas" series that doesn't
go as deeply, but puts everything in perspective, and also explains the
individual WGs (again, specifically aimed at people not from the area, so
trying to avoid jargon).  But given that we have done security and routing,
it would be nice to start with the other areas.

I'd like to be involved in developing the content, particularly to flag
incomprehensible jargon that will lose people who are not in the area, or
suggest ways of explaining things very concisely.

There's still time to commit the first in this series for Orlando IETF, but
we could just try to start developing it with an eye to the future.

So, in summary...which of you are willing to personally volunteer to help
or even present, or can you suggest a few other people in the area who you
think could present or help?

Radia

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:52:36 -0500

> So, in summary...which of you are willing to personally volunteer to help or
> even present, or can you suggest a few other people in the area who you

I am happy to personally volunteer -- certainly to help, and possible
to present, given the overlap with other meetings (IESG members are
generally only available between 2 and 4 p.m. on Sunday, if at all).

Other possible folks from the App area are Alexey Melnikov, Peter
Saint-Andre, and Murray Kucherawy.

Barry

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2012 13:05:24 +0100

Radia
>
> So, for example, thinking of network management...rather than looking 
> at various protocols such as SNMP or NETCONF, talk about the vision of 
> how to manage a network...a NOC, a management station from which the 
> network is managed, a language for  talking between the management 
> station and the nodes, a MIB for exposing things that should be 
> readable, writeable, cause alerts.  What kinds of things would one 
> want to monitor/set in a network from a management station?  Why are 
> there multiple languages for talking to things (SNMP, NETCONF, 
> OPENFLOW).  Are they competitors or do we need them all because they 
> do different things?
Let me answer that one, since it deals with network management.
Interestingly, we've been discussing this topic a few times in the 
OPS-AREA and within the OPS-directorate lately
We don't have a full agreement within the community on which protocols 
and data models to use in all use cases: NETCONF/SNMP for 
configuration/monitoring, for example.
I believe that the solution will be to update RFC 1052.
So, while I support this initiative, this is a little bit too early for 
network management

Regards, Benoit