Subject: [edu-team] IPFIX tutorial on Sunday at the coming IETF

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:54:49 +0100

Hi Radia,

I hope it's not too late for an IPFIX tutorial on Sunday.
There is one extra reason why this tutorial is required: there is a lack 
of IPFIX information in an approved BoF: LMAP, Large-Scale Measurement 
of Broadband Performance.
Please let us known.
The identified speaker is Brian Trammel, in the copy list.

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 10:04:00 -0800

Unfortunately, I suspect it is too late to add another tutorial, unless we
can get another room.  Could it be postponed until the next IETF?  Also,
could an overview of IPFIX (not going through all the fields, but just what
it is for and the general concepts), be done in the 1st 15 minutes of the
BOF?

Would IPFix possibly be relevant in the "overview of RAI" tutorial?  Could
there be 15 minutes to explain that?

(I don't know much about IPFIX).

Radia

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:

> of IPFIX information in an approved BoF: LMAP, Large-Scale Measurement of
> Broadband Performance.
> Please let us known.

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:31:26 -0500

I agree.  It is too late.

Russ

On Feb 4, 2013, at 1:04 PM, Radia Perlman wrote:

> Unfortunately, I suspect it is too late to add another tutorial, unless we can get another room.  Could it be postponed until the next IETF?  Also, could an overview of IPFIX (not going through all the fields, but just what it is for and the general concepts), be done in the 1st 15 minutes of the BOF?
> 
> Would IPFix possibly be relevant in the "overview of RAI" tutorial?  Could there be 15 minutes to explain that?
> 
> There is one extra reason why this tutorial is required: there is a lack of IPFIX information in an approved BoF: LMAP, Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance.
> Please let us known.
> _______________________________________________
> edu-team mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-team

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:50:34 +0100

On 4/02/2013 19:04, Radia Perlman wrote:
> Unfortunately, I suspect it is too late to add another tutorial, 
> unless we can get another room.  Could it be postponed until the next 
> IETF?  Also, could an overview of IPFIX (not going through all the 
> fields, but just what it is for and the general concepts), be done in 
> the 1st 15 minutes of the BOF?
This is the plan anyway.

Btw, how soon do we have to plan a tutorial?
Can you put IPFIX for the next IETF tutorials, assuming that Brian is OK 
for Berlin.

Regards, Benoit
>
> Would IPFix possibly be relevant in the "overview of RAI" tutorial? 
>  Could there be 15 minutes to explain that?

> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Radia,
>
>     There is one extra reason why this tutorial is required: there is
>     a lack of IPFIX information in an approved BoF: LMAP, Large-Scale
>     Measurement of Broadband Performance.
>     Please let us known.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 07:48:45 +0000

Benoit,

I think we *should* be planning the tutorials 2 IETFs in advance
to ensure adequate preparation and a consistent overall programme.
In practice we start firm planning shortly after IETF N for IETF N+1,
and we must finalise the line-up when the Secretariat opens up the
registration page. I think that happened early January this time.

Actually I think IPFIX is a fine topic, because it is a tool that
could be of wide cross-WG and cross-Area benefit.

Regards
   Brian

On 04/02/2013 18:50, Benoit Claise wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 10:11:55 +0100

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the clarification.
If there is a slot for Berlin, then here is my official request...

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 16:29:40 +0100

Hi Benoit,

Can you please send a short description or outline for the Edu Team to 
review. If there are no objections (and I didn't see any yet), we can 
definitely schedule it for Berlin. We would then also like to see the 
slides prior to the meeting (possibly 4 - 6 weeks before).

Kind Regards,
Mirjam

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:03:49 -0800

The Sunday tutorials aren't for going into the deep details of one protocol
for people who need to implement it.  That would require reading the RFC.
With only at most 2 technical tutorials each IETF, there would be no time
to have one for each protocol.  And people can't really absorb deep details
in a tutorial...again, that requires reading the RFC.

So, would it make sense instead for conceptual overview of IPFIX to be part
of "Folklore of Managing a Network" tutorial that would explain the concept
of SNMP and MIBs, and why, even though we already have that, we also
developed NETCONF and YANG, and IPFIX, OPENFLOW/SDN, traceroute/ping,
etc...what kinds of things people need to actually do in order to manage a
network...what kinds of things go wrong that need to be fixed, how all
these tools fit together...which ones are complementary, which things
overlap...

I think that would be a really cool tutorial.

And the time could be split with different presenters, if there isn't a
single person who feels confident in all of the content.

Radia

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>>> ------------
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> edu-team mailing list
>>>> [email-masked]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/edu-team<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-team>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> edu-team mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/edu-team<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-team>
>>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> edu-team mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/edu-team<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-team>
>

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:03:58 +0100

Radia,

While I could agree with "The Sunday tutorials aren't for going into the 
deep details of one protocol for people _who need to implement it_.", I 
believe that the tutorials are there for people who want to understand a 
protocol along with its extension and applicability ... without reading 
the 10 or 15 RFCs. We have too many BoF requests for which participants 
don't have the minimum OPS knowledge, and I want to give them _recorded 
_tutorials to help them. Recorded because I want to be able to give a 
pointer in the future.

I hear you regarding "Folklore of Managing a Network" tutorial. We 
discussed that earlier. I believe it's a little bit earlier, 
specifically because there are IETF discussions around which protocols 
to use for monitoring versus configuration.

Regards, Benoit
> The Sunday tutorials aren't for going into the deep details of one 
> protocol for people who need to implement it.  That would require 
> reading the RFC.  With only at most 2 technical tutorials each IETF, 
> there would be no time to have one for each protocol.  And people 
> can't really absorb deep details in a tutorial...again, that requires 
> reading the RFC.
> So, would it make sense instead for conceptual overview of IPFIX to be 
> part of "Folklore of Managing a Network" tutorial that would explain 
> the concept of SNMP and MIBs, and why, even though we already have 
> that, we also developed NETCONF and YANG, and IPFIX, OPENFLOW/SDN, 
> traceroute/ping, etc...what kinds of things people need to actually do 
> in order to manage a network...what kinds of things go wrong that need 
> to be fixed, how all these tools fit together...which ones are 
> complementary, which things overlap...
> And the time could be split with different presenters, if there isn't 
> a single person who feels confident in all of the content.
> Radia
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Benoit,
>
>     Can you please send a short description or outline for the Edu
>     Team to review. If there are no objections (and I didn't see any
>     yet), we can definitely schedule it for Berlin. We would then also
>     like to see the slides prior to the meeting (possibly 4 - 6 weeks
>     before).
>
>     Kind Regards,
>     Mirjam
>
>
>                     On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Benoit Claise
>                     <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>                     <mailto:[email-masked]
>                     <mailto:[email-masked]>>> wrote:
>
>                          Hi Radia,
>
>                 [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>         [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 12:20:09 -0800

I think it would be fine to have a tutorial that is "premature", in the
sense that all the answers are not known...discussing the various points of
view and pros and cons, as currently understood.

If it's really the case that the management area is grappling with these
issues, and doesn't have a clear direction, then
cross-fertilization...having more people aware of the controversies, would
help.

And certainly, it would help to force the management experts to write down
all the reasons there are controversies, with pros and cons.

So for both of those reasons, I think it would help the management area
sort through these issues if we have a "folklore of network management"
tutorial.

Perhaps there could be 30 minutes on IPFIX...again, not enough detail to
implement it, but enough to understand what it is and read the RFCs for
more detail, and the rest could be an overview of the other stuff.  And if
there is shyness about recording "premature" stuff, then there could be a
recording of just IPFIX?

Just brainstorming here...

Radia
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:

> deep details of one protocol for people *who need to implement it*.", I
> protocol along with its extension and applicability ... without reading the
> 10 or 15 RFCs. We have too many BoF requests for which participants don't
> have the minimum OPS knowledge, and I want to give them *recorded *tutorials
> to help them. Recorded because I want to be able to give a pointer in the
> future.
>
> discussed that earlier. I believe it's a little bit earlier, specifically
> because there are IETF discussions around which protocols to use for
> monitoring versus configuration.
>
> Regards, Benoit
>
>
> protocol for people who need to implement it.  That would require reading
> the RFC.  With only at most 2 technical tutorials each IETF, there would be
> no time to have one for each protocol.  And people can't really absorb deep
> details in a tutorial...again, that requires reading the RFC.
>
> part of "Folklore of Managing a Network" tutorial that would explain the
> concept of SNMP and MIBs, and why, even though we already have that, we
> also developed NETCONF and YANG, and IPFIX, OPENFLOW/SDN, traceroute/ping,

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:38:56 +0100

Radia,

We're discussing two different goals/audiences:
     1. people who to have a broad view of the OPS area. Your proposal 
addresses this need.
     2. people who need to understand a particular topic in more 
details. Could be implementers, newcomers who want to be involved, or 
BoF participants who must have an applicability overview without reading 
10 RFCs.

Regarding 2, I am concerned because it's the second time (since I'm an 
AD, so surely more occurrences in the past) that we have the situation 
that people in other areas have no trainings about what is available in 
OPS. I was hoping that EDU would consider within their charter filling 
in this gap. Note that the NETCONF tutorial a few IETsFagowas the 
perfect example of what I was trying to achieve.

Regarding 2, I'm currently investigating a private webex recording, 
which I would post somewhere at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipfix/

Note that the two solutions addressed different problems, and are not 
exclusive.

Regards, Benoit
> I think it would be fine to have a tutorial that is "premature", in 
> the sense that all the answers are not known...discussing the various 
> points of view and pros and cons, as currently understood.
> If it's really the case that the management area is grappling with 
> these issues, and doesn't have a clear direction, then 
> cross-fertilization...having more people aware of the controversies, 
> would help.
> And certainly, it would help to force the management experts to write 
> down all the reasons there are controversies, with pros and cons.
> So for both of those reasons, I think it would help the management 
> area sort through these issues if we have a "folklore of network 
> management" tutorial.
> Perhaps there could be 30 minutes on IPFIX...again, not enough detail 
> to implement it, but enough to understand what it is and read the RFCs 
> for more detail, and the rest could be an overview of the other 
> stuff.  And if there is shyness about recording "premature" stuff, 
> then there could be a recording of just IPFIX?
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked] 
>     While I could agree with "The Sunday tutorials aren't for going
>     into the deep details of one protocol for people _who need to
>     implement it_.", I believe that the tutorials are there for people
>     who want to understand a protocol along with its extension and
>     applicability ... without reading the 10 or 15 RFCs. We have too
>     many BoF requests for which participants don't have the minimum
>     OPS knowledge, and I want to give them _recorded _tutorials to
>     help them. Recorded because I want to be able to give a pointer in
>     the future.
>
>     specifically because there are IETF discussions around which
>     protocols to use for monitoring versus configuration.
>
>     Regards, Benoit
>>     The Sunday tutorials aren't for going into the deep details of
>>     one protocol for people who need to implement it.  That would
>>     require reading the RFC. With only at most 2 technical tutorials
>>     each IETF, there would be no time to have one for each protocol. 
>>     And people can't really absorb deep details in a
>>     tutorial...again, that requires reading the RFC.
>>     So, would it make sense instead for conceptual overview of IPFIX
>>     to be part of "Folklore of Managing a Network" tutorial that
>>     would explain the concept of SNMP and MIBs, and why, even though
>>     we already have that, we also developed NETCONF and YANG, and
>>     IPFIX, OPENFLOW/SDN, traceroute/ping, etc...what kinds of things
>>     people need to actually do in order to manage a network...what
>>     kinds of things go wrong that need to be fixed, how all these
>>     tools fit together...which ones are complementary, which things
>>     overlap...
>>     And the time could be split with different presenters, if there
>>     isn't a single person who feels confident in all of the content.
>>     Radia
>>
>>         Can you please send a short description or outline for the
>>         Edu Team to review. If there are no objections (and I didn't
>>         see any yet), we can definitely schedule it for Berlin. We
>>         would then also like to see the slides prior to the meeting
>>         (possibly 4 - 6 weeks before).
>>
>>         Kind Regards,
>>         Mirjam
>>
>>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:16:09 +0000

Benoit,

IMHO there is a basic question about the goals of the EDU team here.
Personally I have always thought that the main criterion for a
tutorial topic was: will this topic help a significant number of
people who are *not* specialists on the topic to apply new knowledge
in their own area of IETF activity?

The reason I think an IPFIX tutorial is a good idea is that I think
it will help people to apply IPFIX in support of the work of other WGs.

It's a matter of taste, but since we are not offering General Ed degrees
here, I think a focussed tutorial of this kind is in the end more useful
than a general Ops-area tutorial. I suspect Radia disagrees.

However, I don't think EDU's mandate includes educating people about
topic X so that they can work on topic X. This is of course debatable
and I am only stating my opinion.

Regards
   Brian

On 13/02/2013 14:38, Benoit Claise wrote:
>     2. people who need to understand a particular topic in more details.
> Could be implementers, newcomers who want to be involved, or BoF
> participants who must have an applicability overview without reading 10
> RFCs.
>