On 7/31/2010 1:00 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
or perhaps many
drafts are written in such a way that folks can't easily grok the problem
and its proposed solution. Regarding the latter, one of the WGs I advise
held a small "tutorial" session in a side room on Friday morning and that
turned out to be quite useful because it forced some of the key
contributors (in this case the chairs) to clearly explain the core
concepts behind the protocol under development within the WG, and I think
that effort will pay off in the form of a much clearer and more readable
specification.
Kudos.
There has long been discomfort about working group meetings that are primarily
tutorial. Given the very short time there is for wg meetings, it really is
essential that they be devoted to resolving specific questions through face to
face debate. That's really all there is time for.
That said, careful summary/tutorial can often be quite helpful. And you point
the perhaps-not-obvious benefit that it solidifies the presentation abilities of
the principles, rather than only providing basic exposure for new folk.
So I find myself reacting to your note by thinking that perhaps we should
distinguish these activities and schedule them separately, with clear labeling.
Only some groups will need tutorials. Only some folk will need/want to attend
them. If a group needs /only/ tutorial, we might want to take a moment and
wonder how that can be.
I could, for example, imagine a message of brief tutorials filling some of Sunday...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf