Hi Kathleen,
you are responding to the question about the target audience* and I saw
your video. That's an interesting idea to reach out to those who are not
yet involved in an IETF group.
Of course, our working group pages and the Wikis are not necessarily are
great way to communicate with people other than our main target audience.
There is indeed something we could improve and I had in fact given a
presentation about this topic to the IAB at the retreat this year. Here
are the slides:
http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/IAB_Work_Style.pdf
Ciao
Hannes
PS: I got the impression from Harald's response that he was actually
thinking about a different audience. Of course, the audience determines
the content.
On 20.09.2013 17:28, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
From my experience, some people not as familiar with the IETF have
trouble understanding how to fit RFCs together. That leads to a
readability problem in itself. Some also don't realize that you can
reference part of one RFC and not the whole thing rather than
reinventing the wheel or documenting something again.
For MILE, we had several requests to pull together descriptions on
how the drafts& RFCs fit together. We did a short video, but need
to get a wiki or something together to assist. In light of the
current thread, I think it is important to include in that the
current set of security protections in case they are not adequate and
it gets someone's attention who is interested to help improve things
(even just through critiques). We will try to get this together in a
wiki soon. If it helps readability, maybe to would be good for
others to consider?
Thanks, Kathleen
-----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig Sent:
Friday, September 20, 2013 7:38 AM To: harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc:
ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Transparency in Specifications and
PRISM-class attacks
On 20.09.2013 13:20, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
To my mind, the first thing to focus on is making our specs
readable, so that it's possible to understand that they have not
been compromised.
Three questions for you Harald:
1) When you say that our documents have to be "readable" then you
have to say readable by whom? Of course, most of our documents are
tailored to those who implement rather than to, let's say, someone
who has little understanding of Internet technology in general.
2) Are there documents you find non-readable?
3) Do you have any reasons to believe that there are documents that
have been compromised?