Subject: [edu-team] IETF65 Classes

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 17:10:55 -0500

Hi,

It is time to submit the names of the classes we will offer in  
Texas.  I should have brought this up before this, but lost track of  
it all with other work and holidyas.  At this point I need to give  
the information by Friday if I want to have it included on the IETF  
info page for the next meeting.

so far the schedule includes the permanent classes

- Newcomers (Scott are you willing to go again)
- RFC editor's training (RFC Editor)

I think that we should also offer these again
  - Security class (I need to check with Charlie)
  - WG leadership (?).

That leaves us with 2 open slots if we are moving to the 6 class  
schedule as planned.

some of the suggestions we had were:

- Bringing new work into the IETF (possibly Thomas - don't know if it  
will be ready and i still think it might be netter as a WG chairs  
session first time around)
- XML (possibility of Elwyn teaching)

other possibilities include (but have not volunteers yet)
- MPLS/GMPLS, internet telephony, topics and addressing
- protocol engineering fundamentals
- new process classes
   - e.g. IPR

comments?

a.

_______________________________________________
edu-team mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-team

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 17:21:14 -0500

Elwyn has confirmed that he will teach the xml2rfc class.

a.

On 4 jan 2006, at 17.10, Avri Doria wrote:

> Texas.  I should have brought this up before this, but lost track  
> of it all with other work and holidyas.  At this point I need to  
> give the information by Friday if I want to have it included on the  
> IETF info page for the next meeting.
>
> - Bringing new work into the IETF (possibly Thomas - don't know if  
> it will be ready and i still think it might be netter as a WG  
> chairs session first time around)

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 16:22:38 -0600

Hi, Avri,

> Hi,
>
> It is time to submit the names of the classes we will offer in  Texas.  I 
> should have brought this up before this, but lost track of  it all with 
> other work and holidyas.  At this point I need to give  the information by 
> Friday if I want to have it included on the IETF  info page for the next 
> meeting.
>
I hope Paul can come this time - it's better when we do it together. This 
would be the second offering in a row, so we would expect to give the class 
this time and miss IETF 66...

>
> That leaves us with 2 open slots if we are moving to the 6 class  schedule 
> as planned.
>
> will be ready and i still think it might be netter as a WG chairs  session 
> first time around)

The WG chairs session idea sounds good.

> - XML (possibility of Elwyn teaching)

I hadn't heard this one before, and really like the idea. It's not like 
we're using XML in lots of working groups or anything :-)

> - protocol engineering fundamentals

It would be good to make a call on whether IPR is a separate class - if not, 
we really need to add material to the Overview and Working Group Leadership 
classes (as Brian pointed out previously), but if it's an entire class on 
its own, I'd just point to that class elsewhere.

> comments?

Always :-)

Spencer

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 16:23:40 -0600

O. I misunderstood.

> Elwyn has confirmed that he will teach the xml2rfc class.

This is ALSO good, but if we could teach an *XML* class, that would be 
lovely.

Spencer

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 18:22:06 -0500 (EST)

> - Newcomers (Scott are you willing to go again)

yes

Scott

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 18:25:18 -0500 (EST)

>    - e.g. IPR

it would be hard to go more than 30 minutes on this 

Scott

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 17:37:28 -0600

> it would be hard to go more than 30 minutes on this

I may not have the same understanding of the request, but I'm thinking that 
David Black talked for some time at a recent IETF plenary about a single 
working group's experiences in dealing with IPR.

If by "IPR" we mean an update on CHANGES that the IPR working group has 
consensus on, that's very short, but if this turned into a general overview 
of IPR in standards, a detailed description of responsibilities with no 
weasel-words ("do I HAVE to disclose IPR when I submit the draft?"), and an 
update on recent WG experiences with IPR, I imagine we could chat for a 
while.

Spencer

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 20:38:59 -0500 (EST)

> but if this turned into a general overview

and I'd say that if we did "chat for a while" we would not have made the
description as clear as we should and the listeners would just be confused :-)

I think the full IETF patent policy is about 20 min and the full
IETF copyright policy is about 10

there might be a few questions (:-) ) that would add to the time
but the basic presentation should not be long (if we are going to 
make things clear)

I do not think its useful (i.e., is confusing) to go into
teh kind of detail that David did in a session aimed at telling
people what they have to do and working groups what they should do

I can work up some slides if anyone wants

Scott

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 13:46:29 +0100

> This is ALSO good, but if we could teach an *XML* class, that would be 

Not sure. XML2RFC is right on target for EDU's job of educating the
IETF to do its own job better. I like the idea of focus on classes
that do that. Avri's program looks good from that point of view.

XML, MPLS/GMPLS, internet telephony etc sound more like general technology
tutorials, which is not really what EDU was set up for.

     Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 13:49:18 +0100

> it would be hard to go more than 30 minutes on this 

Oh, I can see it taking a lot longer. Maybe we should ask
Scott Brim how long it would take to teach from his
guidelines RFC?

There are also basics of patent and copyright law that
would be good to cover, but that will be hard on a volunteer
basis.

     Brian

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 07:59:38 -0500 (EST)

> Scott Brim how long it would take to teach from his

clearly if we wanted to do a bunch of case studies (like the guidelines RFC)
it could be a lot longer indeed - and a lot more confusing to the average
attendee who needs to know what their own responsibilities are in their
own IPR and what they should expect within a WG decision process

Scott

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 09:30:43 -0500

> tutorials, which is not really what EDU was set up for.

doing technical overview topics is something that we have been doing  
for the last year.  this relates to the charter item:

> IETF Protocol Engineering Fundamentals
> This will be a technical topic aimed at all IETF participants. We  
> will explore technical considerations that all IETF document  
> authors and reviewers should consider when developing protocols  
> within the IETF. We will primarily focus on cross-area issues, such  
> as congestion control and internationalization.

I think the Security and DNS classes certainly fit this category.   
The routing class, was a bit different and marked a slight  
(intentional) branching out in that it was a class that tried to give  
an overview of a critical area.  It was certainly a well received  
offering.  But perhaps we need to discuss, while doing the charter  
overview that still needs to be done, whether this is something that  
should be in our charter.

I see a class in XML-the general topic, as being in the chartered  
category as this is a technology that is used in many of the efforts  
and would be like teaching a class in MIB fundamentals.  Classes in  
(G)MPLS or IP telephony would be in the second not currently  
chartered category, like the Routing class, overviews on the  
technology the IETF works on.  which are very useful for some of the  
specialists in other areas as introductions to the scope of IETF.

In any case, we do nat have offers on these classes for the moment,  
so perhaps we can postpone the conversation on in or out of charter  
until we start the charter discussion.

At the moment we could have the following  schedule

Session A

- Newcomer - Scott Bradner
- Editing an RFC - RFC Editor
- Security - Charlie Kaufman

Session B

- WG Leadership - Spencer/Paul
                (need to edit somewhat to make overlap less with RFC  
editor)
- XML2RFC - Elwyn Davies
- Currently a choice:
      IPR - Brim/Bradner (have not checked with Scott Brim yet)
      Routing - Radia (assuming it is allowed as 'in charter' by Brian)

Since I need a decision today on this, I would like people's (eps  
Brian's) on this schedule and especially on the last slot.

Also since we wanted to plan the WG chairs luncheon early, we might  
want to plan for:

  - how to bring new work into the ietf - a seminar on the future  
class (Thomas)
  - other topic?

thanks

a.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 16:42:10 +0100

This proposal looks fine. I'm not saying all technical classes are
excluded, but that we have to think carefully about whether
they are appropriate to the primary purpose of the team.

     Brian

Avri Doria wrote:
>> will explore technical considerations that all IETF document  authors 
>> and reviewers should consider when developing protocols  within the 
>> IETF. We will primarily focus on cross-area issues, such  as 
>> congestion control and internationalization.
> 
> 
> I think the Security and DNS classes certainly fit this category.   The 
> routing class, was a bit different and marked a slight  (intentional) 
> branching out in that it was a class that tried to give  an overview of 
> a critical area.  It was certainly a well received  offering.  But 
> perhaps we need to discuss, while doing the charter  overview that still 
> needs to be done, whether this is something that  should be in our charter.
> 
> (G)MPLS or IP telephony would be in the second not currently  chartered 
> category, like the Routing class, overviews on the  technology the IETF 
> works on.  which are very useful for some of the  specialists in other 
> areas as introductions to the scope of IETF.
> 
> In any case, we do nat have offers on these classes for the moment,  so 
> perhaps we can postpone the conversation on in or out of charter  until 
> we start the charter discussion.
> 
>  - how to bring new work into the ietf - a seminar on the future  class 
> (Thomas)
>  - other topic?
> 
> thanks
> 
> a.
>

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 10:58:09 -0500

> they are appropriate to the primary purpose of the team.

thanks
you did not indicate if you had a preference on the last slot:  IPR  
or routing.

a.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:10:20 +0100

Avri Doria wrote:
> you did not indicate if you had a preference on the last slot:  IPR  or 
> routing.

IPR would mean Scott and Scott agreeing, I think, and that seems to
need more discussion than will fit into today. So as a pragmatist, I'd suggest
routing.

    Brian

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:04:38 -0500

Hi,

i bow (finally) to pragmatism.  and will tell Marcia that the  
schedule is:

Session A

- Newcomer - Scott Bradner
- Editing an RFC - The RFC Editor
- Security - Charlie Kaufman (still waiting for confirmation from  
Charlie)

Session B

- WG Leadership - Spencer Dawkins & Paul Hoffman
- XML2RFC - Elwyn Davies
- Routing - Radia Perlman

I need to submit the paragraph descriptions with the selection.  I  
will submit the ones that have been used before for the repeat  
classes, unless you want to change it - in which case please send me  
a replacement.

thanks

a.

On 5 jan 2006, at 11.10, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>> you did not indicate if you had a preference on the last slot:   
>> IPR  or routing.
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 15:20:20 +0100

EDU folk,

Now that Avri has settled the classes for Dallas, I'd like to
strongly request (AD hat on) that we plan further ahead for
IETF 66. (Site selection is finally well advanced, now that
the secretariat has been successfully rehomed.)

In particular I need to bring up a concern that's emerged
in the IAOC, which I remind you has a legitimate interest
due to both budgetary issues and its responsibility for ensuring
that the IETF process gets the best possible support.

This team is chartered to manage "the internal education efforts
of the IETF, primarily focused on role and process education for
IETF participants and leaders." As soon as we offer classes that
are primarily on *technical* topics, we have to ask whether they
fit this mission, despite the wiggle room implied by "primarily."

That's why, for example, there was concern in the IAOC last time
when there was no RFC Editor tutorial, and that's why I will be
asked questions about the Security and Routing classes this time.
(I've copied Leslie for a sample of IAOC thinking.)

There are in fact two questions there:

- how do these classes support EDU's primary mission of
   role and process education?
- if we're going to offer technical tutorials by world class
   experts, shouldn't we be charging extra for them?

(If that seems a little crass, please remember that
we have to make a substantial surplus on every IETF meeting
for the IETF to stay afloat. We're running a business here,
among other things.)

I suggest we try to schedule some quiet time in Dallas to discuss
these issues (i.e. not a noisy mealtime). I'm sure we can find
the right balance, but we need to talk it through in good time.

    Brian

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 10:45:55 -0800

In terms of charging for tutorials...one could think of the value as all 
part of the IETF registration
fee, making the fee for the week more justifiable to employers, or for 
people
that are self-funding the trip. I don't think it's necessary
to charge extra for those that bother to attend vs those that don't. 
There are already people
that don't attend all 5 days of IETF, or don't eat their share of
cookies, and they don't get a discount on their IETF registration fee.

If there were fees, then registration would be a hassle, we'd need to 
have someone checking
that only registered attendees were coming in, we'd be expected to hand 
out hardcopies
of the overheads onsite, etc.

I think IETF desperately suffers from needing cross-area fertilization, 
having WGs designing
things when they don't have a clue about anything outside their own WG, 
and having people outside
that WG whose input and review the WG desperately needs, not bothering 
because the specs
are too hard to read, the mailing list too voluminous, etc. I keep 
trying to imagine ways in which
we can solve these problems. If having the edu team offer technical 
overviews of areas to help
people catch up is not in edu's charter, then perhaps it should be added 
to the charter.

Radia

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 23:12:16 -0500

Radia,

I don't disagree with your logic, but there are broader issues
that come into play.  (This is the sample of IAOC thinking to which
Brian alluded).  There has, in the past, been some discussion of
whether a general tutorial session would be a useful mechanism
for raising funds to support the IETF.  This wouldn't be a case
of asking the EDU team to charge for admission, but rather exploring
the possibility of setting up something quite separate.  Possibly
in another town:  the other issue that comes up repeatedly is that
the IETF has historically been viewed as a work session for
technical leaders, not an education tour for their managers.

The IAOC is responsible for helping figure out how best to
leverage and support the IETF financially, which is why it's
the place to figure out if we're offering for-fee tutorial training,
exhibits, paid breaks (this cookie brought to you by...), etc.

The question of whether the IETF has moved beyond being just
a working session is not the IAOC's to answer, but it is, IMO,
a rather more general IETF community question.

All of that to say:  the issue is that there are decisions here that
need to be made in a different and/or larger scope than the EDU
team.  And everything you've said below is, IMO, good input to those
discussions, but they don't end there.

Leslie.

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:29:22 -0500

> the right balance, but we need to talk it through in good time.

Actually, could I suggest we have a call before Dallas to try to work
through this (and any other) issues? Dallas is still a long ways from
now, and having productive meetings at the physical meetings has
proven difficult. Let's reserve f2f meetings for resolving things we
can't otherwise resolve. :-)

Radia Perlman <[email-masked]> writes:

> I think IETF desperately suffers from needing cross-area
> fertilization, having WGs designing things when they don't have a
> clue about anything outside their own WG, and having people outside
> that WG whose input and review the WG desperately needs, not
> bothering because the specs are too hard to read, the mailing list
> too voluminous, etc. I keep trying to imagine ways in which we can
> solve these problems.

While I agree that there is a problem here that needs improvement, I
think we should be careful about taking on the work of solving it. By
that, I mean that its OK for us to look at structural issues and to
discuss possible fixes, but it is less clear that we are the right
body to _execute_ all suggestions. In this particular case, I worry
about how to scale it across all of the IETF WGs, and whether that is
a good use of _our_ resources to take on.

> If having the edu team offer technical overviews of areas to help
> people catch up is not in edu's charter, then perhaps it should be
> added to the charter.

IMO, there are other (more important) areas that are a better match
for what we should be doing. Having said that, I'm now at a loss to
list our priorities. Can I suggest stepping back and:

1) go through the list of items that might be on our plate (Avri?)

2) prioritize them

3) figure out what (if anything) we should be doing, based on the
   prioritization.

I keep feeling like we aren't tackling the more important (and
admittedly harder) problems that should be center stage for this
group. E.g., the note from Melinda about consensus. What can we do to
help improve the way our WGs actually execute and do their work? Is it
info on how to run mailing list discussions? How to have editors be
most effective? Suggestions or chairs on how to nudge their WGs along?
Or something else?

Thomas

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:10:33 -0600

I'm trying not to just say "I agree with everything Thomas says", but that's 
the high-order bit...

> can't otherwise resolve. :-)

Agree, and in previous IETF cycles we had two or three calls between 
meeting, so we might even find more than one call helpful

> a good use of _our_ resources to take on.

I agree, but note in addition that "cross-area fertilization" is probably 
not just one problem, and some "area intersections" are more important than 
others. I am honestly concerned about the need for more transport clue in 
SHIM6 (a bunch of very smart IP and routing guys who don't do TCP and 
haven't had to worry about oscillation due to congestion, etc - until now).

I also take Thomas's point that providing a framework and then getting other 
people to actually execute this is a really good thing (since we aren't the 
geniuses of everything).

> 3) figure out what (if anything) we should be doing, based on the

4) and repeat at some periodicity (annually?). But I agree with the 
suggestion.

> most effective? Suggestions or chairs on how to nudge their WGs along?

Definitely agree with this... The problem with hard problems is that they 
are hard (so we will naturally tend to "route around" them and solve easier 
and more tractable problems), but that's where the payoff is.

At the risk of ratholing, there is also an interaction with General Area 
topics - for example, there is QUITE A BIT of good practice in the WG 
Leadership tutorial based around who is actually controlling text (authors 
early, WG consensus after adoption), but I don't know how much of this is 
described in our BCPs. This is coming up in my technical work (because I'm 
editing a "working group draft" that was adopted really early, and the 
auhors are still providing major amounts of text, as if it was still an 
individual draft)... would be good if process tutorials and BCPs dovetailed 
closely...

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:25:03 -0500

On 10 jan 2006, at 11.10, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> Agree, and in previous IETF cycles we had two or three calls  
> between meeting, so we might even find more than one call helpful
>

i am more then willing to schedule them.  it is just after falling to  
get enough members, let alone everyone, to agree on a meeting time, i  
eventually stopped trying.

we need to find a regular time that many can agree with.  i.e. the  
day of the month every month. e.g. first monday, 2nd wednesday or  
last friday.  i tend to have most of my existing meetings on Tuesday- 
Thursday so Monday or Friday work best for me.

we also need to figure out a time.  In terms of active members we  
span from NA pacific to Central Europe.  In terms of full membership  
we span from NA pacific to Asia Pacific.  suggestions?

a.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:35:25 -0800

Leslie,

> a rather more general IETF community question.

Seems pretty clear to me that the answer to this is "yes".

How that impacts the content of the tutorials is unclear. I think it might 
be worthwhile for some folks interested in the topic to sit down with the 
IAOC and talk about it.

            jak

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:53:29 +0100

So, any progress on scheduling?

For me, any later than 11:00 ET is a problem, and Wednesdays and
Thursdays are always a bad choice.

    Brian

Avri Doria wrote:
> we need to find a regular time that many can agree with.  i.e. the  day 
> of the month every month. e.g. first monday, 2nd wednesday or  last 
> friday.  i tend to have most of my existing meetings on Tuesday- 
> we also need to figure out a time.  In terms of active members we  span 
> from NA pacific to Central Europe.  In terms of full membership  we span 
> from NA pacific to Asia Pacific.  suggestions?
> 
> a.
>

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:50:44 -0500

hi,

so between your schedule and mine, the only ones to comment so far,  
Monday or Friday is best.

to avoid later then 1100 ET, i assume that is starting time, we would  
need to schedule for 800 pacific.

unfortunately my Mondays for Febraury are full of travel etc, until  
the 27th.  and it is too late for next Monday.  as for Fridays in  
February I already have commitments on the 10th and the 17th.  but  
the 3rd is free.

the first Friday of the month, therefore, seems possible as a regular  
spot that I could start with in February.  so can we plan on the  
first Friday of each month at 800 Pacific?  I would really like to  
have a regular monthly meeting time.

i.e. 2 meetings before the next IETF: 3 Feb and 3 Mar at 800 Pacific?

will it work for people?  if so, i will get an agenda and details out  
early next week.

thanks
a.

On 24 jan 2006, at 02.53, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>> i am more then willing to schedule them.  it is just after falling  
>> to  get enough members, let alone everyone, to agree on a meeting  
>> time, i  eventually stopped trying.
>> we need to find a regular time that many can agree with.  i.e.  
>> the  day of the month every month. e.g. first monday, 2nd  
>> wednesday or  last friday.  i tend to have most of my existing  
>> meetings on Tuesday- Thursday so Monday or Friday work best for me.
>> span from NA pacific to Central Europe.  In terms of full  
>> membership  we span from NA pacific to Asia Pacific.  suggestions?
>> a.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:39:10 +0100

Those two Fridays at 8 PT/ 11 ET/ 17 CET work for me.

I know it's early for West Coasters but it's also close of business
time for West Europeans.

    Brian

Avri Doria wrote:
> unfortunately my Mondays for Febraury are full of travel etc, until  the 
> 27th.  and it is too late for next Monday.  as for Fridays in  February 
> I already have commitments on the 10th and the 17th.  but  the 3rd is free.
> 
> spot that I could start with in February.  so can we plan on the  first 
> Friday of each month at 800 Pacific?  I would really like to  have a 
> regular monthly meeting time.
> 
>>> last friday.  i tend to have most of my existing  meetings on 
>>> Tuesday- Thursday so Monday or Friday work best for me.

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 07:52:28 -0500 (EST)

> i.e. 2 meetings before the next IETF: 3 Feb and 3 Mar at 800 Pacific?

I have to leave my office at 11:15am ET on 3 Feb
but 3 Mar is just fine

Scott

---

From: "Margaret Wasserman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:46:28 -0500

I will be on a plane at that time on Feb 3rd, but Mar 3 looks good.

I am also available most of the day on Feb 6th and 7th, if you want to move
into the next week.

Margaret

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Scott Bradner
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 7:52 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [edu-team] Thinking ahead
> 
> I have to leave my office at 11:15am ET on 3 Feb but 3 Mar is 
> just fine
> 
> Scott
>

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:50:45 -0600

I have exactly the same story as Margaret (just not the same plane, I 
think)...

(Paul, are you coming to Dallas?)

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Margaret Wasserman" <[email-masked]>

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:40:22 -0500

> I am also available most of the day on Feb 6th and 7th, if you want  

Unfortunately i cannot do the 6th as I will be flying and am not sure  
i will be anywhere where i can do it on the 7th.

a.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:10:10 -0800

Works for me, but after Feb. 3, I'll be gone until Mar. 6.

            jak

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:40:54 +0100

Avri,

the regular meeting time you suggested work for me.

Mirjam