Subject: [edu-team] Fwd: Re: APP Area Overview Tutorial at IETF 89

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:28:54 +0100

Hi all,

Attached are the slides Murray and Alexey put together for the 
Applications Area Overview tutorial. Please review them.

Murray, Alexey,

Are you planning to also mention any current hot topics or contentious 
issues where the audience might have some input?

Also, the relation/overlaps/boundaries between WGs might be interesting 
to point out or how decisions about certain work items were made. 
Anything that helps the audience understand the whole area in addition 
to the individual WGs.

Just some ideas :)

Kind regards,
Mirjam

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:33:08 -0800

> issues where the audience might have some input?

Yes, I think mainly the UTA work is the hot topic.  We'll probably spend an
above average amount on that slide.

I can't think of any others right now.  We might spend extra time talking
about what's going on in APPSAWG since it gets more variety than any of the
others.

> Also, the relation/overlaps/boundaries between WGs might be interesting to
> point out or how decisions about certain work items were made. Anything
> that helps the audience understand the whole area in addition to the
> individual WGs.
>

I think that will happen organically as we move through the WG overviews.
I don't know that we need to dedicate slide space to those points.  Alexey?

-MSK

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:12:12 +0000

On 26/02/2014 09:33, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Are you planning to also mention any current hot topics or
>     contentious issues where the audience might have some input?
>
>
> Yes, I think mainly the UTA work is the hot topic. We'll probably 
> spend an above average amount on that slide.
This sounds about right.
> I can't think of any others right now.  We might spend extra time 
> talking about what's going on in APPSAWG since it gets more variety 
> than any of the others.
>
>     Also, the relation/overlaps/boundaries between WGs might be
>     interesting to point out or how decisions about certain work items
>     were made. Anything that helps the audience understand the whole
>     area in addition to the individual WGs.
>
>
> I think that will happen organically as we move through the WG 
> overviews.  I don't know that we need to dedicate slide space to those 
> points.  Alexey?
I can't think of what we can say without bringing up some specific 
examples. And we will bring up examples while talking about existing WGs.
So I don't think we need anything else.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:39:17 +1300

Looks good to me. My only quick comment is that maybe you need
a slide on "How we relate to W3C (and other SDOs)".

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 26/02/2014 22:28, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> edu-team mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-team

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 09:08:55 +0000

> On 26 Feb 2014, at 19:39, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

A very good point, considering that we periodically swap work items with W3C.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 01:20:07 -0800

I have some exposure to OMA (with which we no longer maintain a formal
liaison) and a slight amount to W3C, and that's it.  Who might we ask for a
more comprehensive picture?

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:08:41 +0100

Hi Murray,

On 27/2/14 10:20 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> liaison) and a slight amount to W3C, and that's it.  Who might we ask
> for a more comprehensive picture?

Maybe one of those people have the full picture?
http://www.ietf.org/liaison/managers.html

Can the slides be uploaded to the edu team pages or are you still making 
changes?

Mirjam

> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>
>      > On 26 Feb 2014, at 19:39, Brian E Carpenter
>     <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>     wrote:
>      >
>     contentious
>     interesting
>      >> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:21:08 +0100

On 27/2/14 3:19 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:08 AM, Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]
>     http://www.ietf.org/liaison/__managers.html
>     <http://www.ietf.org/liaison/managers.html>
>
>
> Thanks, I'll reach out to them for help here.
>
>
>     Can the slides be uploaded to the edu team pages or are you still
>     making changes?
>
>
> Sure, though we might make an adjustment by adding a slide or two about
> liaisons based on this.  Can we amend the upload before Sunday afternoon
> if that's the case?

Sure. Just let me know when you have a final version.

Thanks,
Mirjam

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:34:54 +0000

> for a more comprehensive picture?
I think what two of us know is good enough. This is just an introduction 
session, not a detailed overview of all possible interactions.

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 09:22:30 -0800

I looked over the slides.  They look really good!  Some suggestions...some
of these might just be what you'll explain when showing the slides.

I think there is lecture time to add more technical content...for instance,
one or two meaty issues, just to give a flavor of what kind of engineering
tradeoffs need to be made (usability, backward compatability, efficiency,
latency).  Internationalization is something with all sorts of subtle
issues that aren't immediately obvious (like security...a name can look
right to a human but be a different name, and I can't imagine how
international characters are typed on a US keyboard...are they?)

Also, every time there is an acronym, it should be expanded.  you do that
almost all the time.  Sometimes the acronyms aren't obvious, so perhaps the
letters could be underlined.  For instance "Using TLS in Applications" if
you underlined U and T and A.

If WEIRDs is not an acronym, you could mention that, and say where the name
came from.

And I never quite understood why "BIS" means "revised", but its so
universally used I know what people mean, but still wonder what "BIS"
stands for.  You might mention that for URNBIS.

You also might want to try explaining URL, URN, URI (which always gives me
a headache, and I'm not sure there needed to be these distinctions, and
it's not clear to me where URNs and URIs appear in protocols...Barry
explained it to me once and I sort of understood it for a few minutes...but
at any rate, I'm sure I'm not the only person confused).

PAWS: Who maintains these databases?  What are the URLs for searching
through them?  Can anyone look at them or do you have to subscribe or
something?  You might explain that available spectrum is very local.  And
why is this apps area rather than layer 1 or Management and OPs?

JSON...how about one example of an update that's been made recently and why?

HYBI: I don't know what "multiplexing extensions" are.

What does "restful" mean in "CORE"?

Anyway...these are all just suggestions.

Radia

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Alexey Melnikov
<[email-masked]>wrote:

>  On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Alexey Melnikov <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 23:47:49 +1300

Radia,

"bis" is Latin for "second" so it just means a revised version.

I've seen "ter" for a third version. I suppose the sequence
continues, but my Latin is rusty.

Regards
   Brian