Subject: [edu-team] Tutorial for SDN OpenFlow and ForCES

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 11:44:15 +0200

Dear all,

As it was sent to me privately: "Really, an OpenFlow tutorial at the 
IETF.  Are we that bankrupt of our own ideas?"
I have to agree with that. This is very strange to say the least...

First of, openflow is not an IETF technology.
Secondly, there is much debate on the value of OpenFlow as a SDN 
protocol. For example, "OpenFlow is this noise that distracted the 
industry for a long time", Kireeti,MPLS SDN World Congress and NFV SDN 
2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECZIV1BQPYk

So why do we have this training?

Regards, Benoit

---

From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 11:00:59 +0000

I was wondering on this also - especially as directly overlaps with routing area overview. Are we setting up ourselves for a popularity contest of SDN and routing? When asked on the SDN mailing list, "why not i2rs?" and the answer was that 2hrs was a limited time and so only wanted to discuss two southbound protocols (openflow and ForCES). From the agenda which was sent out, the southbound interfaces is only one-fifth of the discussion:
1. The ideas behind the recent awaking of SDN
2. How an SDN is different from a conventional (routed) network
3. The components and interfaces of an SDN (SDN (whitebox) switch, SDN controller, SBI, NBI)
4. NFV
5. The southbound interfaces (OpenFlow, ForCES, ...)
     5.1 Zoom in on OpenFlow
     5.2 Zoom in on ForCES

So not sure why the attention in the title on the south bound interfaces. As Benoit says - why would IETF give a "zoom in" on OpenFlow, a protocol not done in IETF. Depending what is said, we may ruffle the feathers of ONF folks. I'd suggest if can't delete, changing the title to simply "SDN Overview and Interfaces (OpenFlow, ForCES, and more). And make sure the interfaces are not "zoomed in" and cover IETF options.

Deborah

-----Original Message-----
From: iesg [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 5:44 AM
To: IESG IESG; EDU Team
Subject: Tutorial for SDN OpenFlow and ForCES

Dear all,

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 08:41:48 -0400

I am with Deborah on this.  Who is doing this overview and why?  The
current liaison statement we have with the ONF seems to be clear that
the IETF shouldn't be doing this.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1166/

Brian

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 09:00:35 -0400

+1

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> > I was wondering on this also - especially as directly overlaps with
> routing area overview. Are we setting up ourselves for a popularity contest
> of SDN and routing? When asked on the SDN mailing list, "why not i2rs?" and
> the answer was that 2hrs was a limited time and so only wanted to discuss
> two southbound protocols (openflow and ForCES). From the agenda which was
> sent out, the southbound interfaces is only one-fifth of the discussion:
> > So not sure why the attention in the title on the south bound
> interfaces. As Benoit says - why would IETF give a "zoom in" on OpenFlow, a
> protocol not done in IETF. Depending what is said, we may ruffle the
> feathers of ONF folks. I'd suggest if can't delete, changing the title to
> simply "SDN Overview and Interfaces (OpenFlow, ForCES, and more). And make
> sure the interfaces are not "zoomed in" and cover IETF options.
> >
> > Deborah
> >
> >

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 15:18:58 +0200

So who approved this training, and why?

Regards, Benoit
> +1
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Brian Haberman 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     > I was wondering on this also - especially as directly overlaps
>     with routing area overview. Are we setting up ourselves for a
>     popularity contest of SDN and routing? When asked on the SDN
>     mailing list, "why not i2rs?" and the answer was that 2hrs was a
>     limited time and so only wanted to discuss two southbound
>     protocols (openflow and ForCES). From the agenda which was sent
>     out, the southbound interfaces is only one-fifth of the discussion:
>     interfaces. As Benoit says - why would IETF give a "zoom in" on
>     OpenFlow, a protocol not done in IETF. Depending what is said, we
>     may ruffle the feathers of ONF folks. I'd suggest if can't delete,
>     changing the title to simply "SDN Overview and Interfaces
>     (OpenFlow, ForCES, and more). And make sure the interfaces are not
>     "zoomed in" and cover IETF options.
>     >
>     > Deborah
>     >
>     >
>     > From: iesg [mailto:[email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:10:53 +1200

Benoit,
> So who approved this training, and why?

The EDU team is autonomous; we don't ask for approval but we do typically
consult with relevant ADs and/or WG chairs. This one was decided quite a
while back (originally planned for Honolulu) so I think the EDU co-chairs
will have to look in their mail archives to answer specifically about who
was consulted.

> Regards, Benoit
>> +1
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Brian Haberman <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>

Huh? That we shouldn't be doing a Sunday tutorial?? The purpose is
educational and says nothing about what the IETF should or shouldn't
be working on. In fact it would be very odd *not* to cover related
work in other SDOs.

>>     popularity contest of SDN and routing? 

The scheduling is indeed unfortunate; iirc we tried to avoid it
but something else got moved around too.

>>     When asked on the SDN
>>     OpenFlow, a protocol not done in IETF. 

Given what is happening in the real world, IMHO it would be very strange
to introduce SDN without specific attention to OpenFlow, completely regardless
of which SDO is involved. I can't really judge about i2rs, but it does seem that
it should be covered (which was probably less obvious when the tutorial was
originally planned).

   Brian C

>>     Depending what is said, we
> _______________________________________________
> edu-team mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-team
>

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:00:08 +0200

Brian,

Fair enough if this is your procedure.
Without jumping to the conclusions (you mentioned the EDU co-chairs 
searching through their archive), on particular occasion, it would have 
been wise to consult with the routing ADs.

My 0.02 euros.

Regards, Benoit
> .

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:15:10 -0400

Hi Brian,

> be working on. In fact it would be very odd *not* to cover related

The IESG discussed the liaison when it came in and I was left with the
impression that we needed to avoid even the appearance of the IETF
treading into the ONF domain.  I agree that long-time IETF participants
understand the insignificance of Sunday tutorials on actual IETF work.
It is not clear if external bodies (of any make or model) understand
that separation.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:22:20 +1200

Benoit,

I was dealing with a family emergency yesterday so didn't have time to look
back at my own mail archives. Actually it does seem that we didn't contact
the relevant ADs over this (in the pre-Honolulu timeframe), and at that
point there was no AD liaison on the EDU list (now we have Martin). So
I'm afraid there was a glitch. Well, anyway, we have the EDUNEXT BOF
where we can discuss the future strategy.

Regards
   Brian

On 30/06/2015 20:00, Benoit Claise wrote:
> Without jumping to the conclusions (you mentioned the EDU co-chairs searching through their archive), on particular occasion, it
> would have been wise to consult with the routing ADs.
> 
> My 0.02 euros.
> 
> Regards, Benoit
>> Benoit,

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:26:47 +1200

> It is not clear if external bodies (of any make or model) understand

I can see that, but it would easy enough to explain if the question arose.
This might be a talking point at the WG Chairs Lunch in Prague:
"Topic: Other Standards Development Organizations (Scott Mansfield,
Ralph Droms, Suzanne Woolf)"

Rgds
   Brian C

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 16:26:58 -0400

Brian,

One piece of the concern is how it will be perceived by the ONF.  Some
communication,
if the tutorial is going forward in this form, is probably useful to help
frame it beforehand.
No one likes surprises.

Another is that the tutorial is talking about OpenFlow in preference to
discussing
some IETF technologies (I2RS).  I don't want to get into technology
religions and the
reality is that there's a lot of OpenFlow out there; it allows for good
experimentation.
However, done as that and done directly against the Routing tutorial (where
Adrian and I
were asked about it), it doesn't look like a good combination.

Regards,
Alia

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> searching through their archive), on particular occasion, it
> >>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Brian Haberman <
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> >>>>

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 16:28:53 -0400

> Ralph Droms, Suzanne Woolf)"

You are assuming good will and good assumptions of the other organization
on both sides.  My impression for part of why ONF exists as a separate
entity
is that this isn't the case.

I'm concerned that this is sensitive - both in stepping on the ONF's shoes
and
in potentially providing legitimacy towards OpenFlow.

 Regards,
Alia

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 11:00:35 +1200

Hi Alia,

On 01/07/2015 08:28, Alia Atlas wrote:
> entity is that this isn't the case.
> 

If they object to their work being mentioned as one item in a
90 minute tutorial, they have remarkably sensitive toes.

> and in potentially providing legitimacy towards OpenFlow.

As far as that goes, their legitimacy would come from running
code and traffic volume, wouldn't it? But certainly the slides
need to be objective and neutral.

Mirjam, can you ask for the draft slides ASAP?

Regards,
     Brian

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 18:56:17 -0700

I thought this tutorial would be OK because I thought enough people would
likely be interested.  I didn't think holding a tutorial  means an
endorsement.  I wasn't wild about this one...I forget who was pushing
it--certainly not me, but I tend to prefer to err on the side of allowing
tutorials rather than excluding them...what's the harm, really...for
instance, edu invited the IEEE shortest path bridging (SPB) people to do a
tutorial.  Not only is SPB not an IETF technology, but it is (not
coincidentally, since it's copied the design) conceptually the same as
TRILL, which IS an IETF technology. Nobody on IESG complained about that
tutorial.

 I think tutorials should be about concepts rather than packet
formats...that is what specs are for...I think tutorials are for
introducing technology concepts to people somewhat outside the area).  So I
think when there are competing stardards doing basically the same thing,
I'd prefer the tutorial to cover the concepts, and mention variations of
the concepts used in different standards, and perhaps why there are
multiple standards, and how they fit together or compete.

It's hard enough to have good tutorials...ideally Sunday tutorials will be
something people will look forward to, and plan travel accordingly, as a
place to learn stuff, especially outside their area.  It's hard to have
good speakers, it's hard to make sure they actually show up.  It's hard to
ensure that they are not being political rather than technical.

I think that the IESG should be on the edu mailing list (unless they opt
out), so they can raise political issues...."that person is volunteering to
give a tutorial because what's really going on is...", as well as technical
ones "it seems people are really confused about what .xxx means...could we
have a tutorial perhaps?", as well as suggest good topics and speakers.

Perhaps because the IESG was not on the mailing list, we could cancel this
tutorial, or substitue another one, if people are reallyagainst it.
Attendees are used to schedules changing, and I don't think any of them
would be traumatized if we cancelled this.  It could be the speaker would
be upset about being invited and then uninvited--so I'd be inclined not to
cancel at this point.  So maybe we should just take this as a lesson for
the future, and we can be more explicit about what tutorials to allow and
disallow in the future.

Radia