Hi Hannes, I would also like to reach developers that may not be familiar with the IETF and find themselves assigned with developing protocols we designed. I'll see if I (or my co-chair) can get something together in short order. ENISA was reviewing materials and asked for this type of information. For our work, they are an important group that have not been attending meetings, but do follow the work. Thanks, Kathleen -----Original Message----- From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:hannes.tschofenig@xxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 1:18 PM To: Moriarty, Kathleen Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Education and Information Sharing ... was Re: Transparency in Specifications and PRISM-class attacks 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? > >